MANSELL -v- THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA [No 4] [2013] WASCA 82

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2013] WASCA 82
Court:	THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)	Published:	26/03/2013
Case No:	CACR:190/2011	Heard:	ON THE PAPERS
Coram:	PULLIN JA	Delivered:	26/03/13
No of pages:	4	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application dismissed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	CAMERON JAMES MANSELL THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Catchwords:	Criminal law Interlocutory applications Miscellaneous
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Mansell v The State of Western Australia [No 2] [2013] WASCA 41

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : MANSELL -v- THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA [No 4] [2013] WASCA 82 CORAM : PULLIN JA HEARD : ON THE PAPERS DELIVERED : 26 MARCH 2013 PUBLISHED : 26 MARCH 2013 FILE NO/S : CACR 190 of 2011 BETWEEN : CAMERON JAMES MANSELL

Appellant

AND

THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : MURRAY J

File No : INS 177 of 2010

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Interlocutory applications - Miscellaneous

(Page 2)

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Application dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : In person

Respondent : Mr L M Fox

Solicitors:

Appellant : In person

Respondent : Director of Public Prosecutions (WA)

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Mansell v The State of Western Australia [No 2] [2013] WASCA 41

(Page 3)

1 PULLIN JA: This is the tenth interlocutory application by the appellant which I have had to deal with. The application is dated 6 March 2013, but was only filed in registry on 13 March 2013.

2 The application reads:

The Applicant applies for A minute to the grounds of appeal and appellant's submissions be accepted for filing.

3 Accompanying the application is a document entitled 'A minute to Grounds of Appeal' and it seeks to substitute a new ground 8. It reads:

Eighth Ground

The verdict of guilty on which the conviction is based should be set aside because, the State did not for-fill [sic] the requirements placed on it by statute law.

Particulars

1. The state did not comply with serving the defence with a certificate pursuant to section 45(5) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2004, as conceded by Lindsay Fox from the Director of Public Prosecutions in his letter dated 9 November 2012.

2. The appellant has written several letters to the State's representatives to ascertain if the investigating officer Craig Stephen served on the relevant authorised officer a certificate pursuant to section 45(5) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2004, as is required under sections 45(2) and 45(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2004.

3. The appellant has also asked for the State to provide confirmation the service notices pursuant to sections 42(2)(a) and (c) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2004 have been served, due to the fact the state has not responded to these requests the appellant has formed the view the state has not complied with the above statutory requirements rendering some exhibits inadmissible and breaching an essential element of the disclosure process with regard to witnesses not called by the state.

4 An affidavit in support sworn 8 March 2013 refers to paragraphs in the particulars and asserts that this ground is a 'new' ground.

5 I will treat the application as an application for leave to amend the grounds of appeal. The application is being dealt with on the papers pursuant to r 7(1)(b) of the Supreme Court (Court of Appeal) Rules 2005 (WA). The application should be dismissed for the reason that the points

(Page 4)

the appellant wants to raise were previously raised by ground 5 of his grounds of appeal. The appellant was refused leave to appeal on ground 5 because it had no reasonable prospect of succeeding. See

Mansell v The State of Western Australia [No 2]

[2013] WASCA 41 [46] - [61].

6 The application is dismissed.

In the matter of Mansell versus The State of Western Australia, the dispute was heard by the court. The defendant, Mansell, sought to challenge certain aspects of his criminal trial, which had resulted in his conviction. The nature of the application was interlocutory, focusing on the procedures and potential errors made during the trial. The case was presided over by the relevant court of jurisdiction in Australia, tasked with determining the validity of the application.

The legal issues presented in the case primarily revolved around the fairness and legality of the trial process. Mansell argued that there were procedural errors and potential biases that could have influenced the outcome of the trial. The court was required to assess whether these claims were substantiated and warranted a new trial or other remedies. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the trial was conducted in accordance with the law and whether any errors were so significant as to undermine the fairness of the proceedings.

Upon reviewing the evidence and arguments presented, the court found that the trial had been conducted correctly and that the claims of procedural errors and bias were not substantiated. The court concluded that there was no basis for the application and dismissed it accordingly. The reasoning behind the decision was that the trial judge had followed proper procedures, and any alleged errors did not reach the threshold of unfairness or legal impropriety that would warrant a new trial. The court's decision was final, and the application was dismissed without merit.

Mansell v The State of Western Australia [No 4]

MANSELL -v- THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA [No 4] [2013] WASCA 82

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established