Mansell v The State of Western Australia [No 4]
[2013] WASCA 82
•26 MARCH 2013
MANSELL -v- THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA [No 4] [2013] WASCA 82
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2013] WASCA 82 | |
| THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) | 26/03/2013 | ||
| Case No: | CACR:190/2011 | ON THE PAPERS | |
| Coram: | PULLIN JA | 26/03/13 | |
| 4 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Application dismissed | ||
| 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.
2
1
1