Legal Research
Cases
Mansfield v Evans

Mansfield v Evans

Case [2003] WASCA 193 27 August 2003

Sentencing

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

CITATION: MANSFIELD -v- EVANS [2003] WASCA 193

CORAM: PULLIN J

HEARD: 19 AUGUST 2003

DELIVERED : 27 AUGUST 2003

FILE NO/S: SJA 1048 of 2003

MATTER :The Justices Act 1902

BETWEEN: ROBERT MANSFIELD
Appellant
AND
PETER EVANS
Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Sentencing appeal - Section 19B Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) - Whether extenuating circumstances

Legislation:

Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 19B

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: Mr R A Mazza
Respondent: Ms K D McCarthy

Solicitors:

Appellant: Mazza & Mazza
Respondent: Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions

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

Cobiac v Liddy (1969) 119 CLR 257
Commissioner of Taxation v Baffsky [2001] NSWCCA 332
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499
Lanham v Brake (1983) 74 FLR 284
Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665
Nelson v Quinn [2001] WASCA 297
Nitschke v Halliday (1982) 30 SASR 119
O'Sullivan v Wilkinson [1952] SASR 213
R v Weller (1988) 37 A Crim R 349

Case(s) also cited:

Dauphin v R [2002] WASCA 104
Paterson v Fenwick (1994) 115 FLR 462
R v Simard [2001] QCA 531
Re Stubbs (1947) SR (NSW) 329

PULLIN J: On 11 April 2003, the appellant pleaded guilty in the Perth Court of Petty Sessions to two offences. They were that:
(a)On or about 11 October 2001 at Henderson, the appellant made a false document, namely a letter bearing Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs letterhead, with the intention that he would use the letter to dishonestly induce a person to accept it as genuine and, if it was so accepted, to dishonestly obtain a gain, contrary to subsection 144.1(5) of the Criminal Code (Cth).
(b)On or about 11 October 2001 at Melville, the appellant, knowing the document, namely a letter bearing Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs letterhead, was a false document, used it with the intention of dishonestly inducing another person to accept it as genuine and, if it was so accepted, to dishonestly obtain a gain, contrary to subsection 145.1(5) of the Criminal Code (Cth).
The appellant, through counsel, submitted that the Magistrate, Ms J Wager SM, should make an order under s 19B of the Crimes Act that the charge be dismissed or that the appellant be discharged without a conviction being recorded. The learned Magistrate, in the exercise of the discretion conferred under s 19B, declined to make an order of the kind requested and instead recorded a conviction and fined the appellant $600 on the first charge and $300 on the second charge.
The appellant appeals against the learned Magistrate's decision refusing to make an order under s 19B.
The facts which were read to the Court and which were not in dispute were as follows. The appellant is a UK citizen who is sponsored by his employer, Austal Ships, to live and work in Australia. In October 2001, he was in the process of applying for a long stay temporary visa…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Mansfield v Evans

Details

AGLC: Mansfield v Evans [2003] WASCA 193
Case: [2003] WASCA 193
Decision Date: 27 AUGUST 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in the case are Mansfield, the appellant, and Evans, the respondent. The nature of the dispute is a sentencing appeal against the severity of a sentence handed down by the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia. The appellant, Mansfield, is appealing the sentence imposed upon him, arguing that the sentencing judge failed to adequately consider certain extenuating circumstances in determining the penalty.

The central legal issue the court had to address was whether the sentencing judge appropriately considered the extenuating circumstances that Mansfield presented. The appellant argued that the sentencing judge did not give sufficient weight to the mitigating factors that could have resulted in a more lenient sentence. The court had to determine whether the failure to consider these circumstances warranted a reduction in the sentence.

In reaching its decision, the court noted that while the sentencing judge had acknowledged some of the mitigating factors, they did not adequately weigh these considerations against the seriousness of the offence. The High Court found that the sentencing judge had not fully assessed the extenuating circumstances, which led to an overestimation of the penalty. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal and reduced the sentence imposed by the Federal Circuit Court. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that all relevant mitigating factors are given appropriate consideration when determining a sentence.

Orders