Mansell v The State of Western Australia [No 5]
[2013] WASCA 83
•26 MARCH 2013
MANSELL -v- THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA [No 5] [2013] WASCA 83
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2013] WASCA 83 | |
| 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: | Applications dismissed | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | CAMERON JAMES MANSELL THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA |
Catchwords: | Criminal law Application to vacate hearing Turns on own facts |
Legislation: | Nil |
Case References: | Mansell v The State of Western Australia [No 3] [2013] WASCA 62 Mansell v The State of Western Australia [No 4] [2013] WASCA 82 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : MANSELL -v- THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA [No 5] [2013] WASCA 83 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 - Application to vacate hearing - Turns on own facts
(Page 2)
Legislation:
Nil
Result:
Applications 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 3] [2013] WASCA 62
Mansell v The State of Western Australia [No 4] [2013] WASCA 82
(Page 3)
1 PULLIN JA: The appellant has made two more interlocutory applications. They are both dated 11 March 2013, but were not filed in the registry until 15 March 2013. This is in addition to the 10 earlier applications brought before me. See Mansell v The State of Western Australia [No 3] [2013] WASCA 62 and Mansell v The State of Western Australia [No 4] [2013] WASCA 82.
2 One of the applications dated 11 March 2013 seeks an order that:
Compact discs containing various media reports about this case to be submitted into evidence.
3 The appellant's affidavit in support does not identify the compact discs or the 'various media reports'. It reads:
2. I say the media reports containing the word 'Mansell' 349 times, the words either 'murder' or 'killed' 99 times and the word 'Puddy' 153 times.
3. I say and believe that this went to the public in which the jury were chosen and would have made a lasting imprint in their psyche undoubtedly influencing their decision-making process.
- The appellant states that this evidence is relevant to grounds 1 and 7 of his appeal.
4 Ground 1 reads:
The verdict of guilty on which the conviction is based should be set aside because, having regard to the evidence, it is unreasonable or cannot be lawfully supported.
5 Ground 7 reads:
The verdict of guilty on which the conviction is based should be set aside because, the State's case was completely circumstantial and fails at many levels factually to support the verdict under close examination.
6 The evidence referred to the affidavit, even by its general description, is not relevant to either ground.
7 It is also likely, although it is impossible to be certain, that this is, in substance, a repeat of 'the fourth application dated 17 February 2013' referred to in Mansell v The State of Western Australia [No 3].
8 As a result of the foregoing, this application is dismissed.
(Page 4)
9 The other application dated 11 March 2013 reads:
The hearing of the appeal scheduled for 3 April 2013 to be vacated due to obstructions to progressing the appellant is experiencing whilst in custody [sic].
10 This is supported by an affidavit which reads:
1. I say I am submitting this affidavit in support of an application in an appeal to vacate the date currently set down for the hearing of the appeal which is due to commence on … 3 April 2013.
2. I say this is due to the obstructions the appellant is experiencing progressing the appeal whilst in custody.
3. I say this application is relevant to both grounds 1 and 7 and all the paragraphs in those grounds contained in the appellant's submissions.
11 That affidavit provides no particulars to support the generalised assertion of 'obstructions'. For that reason, this application is also dismissed.
12 The appellant is wasting time by bringing meritless interlocutory applications, time which could be spent on preparation for the appeal.
2
1