Legal Research
Cases
Mansfield v The Queen

Mansfield v The Queen

Case [2017] VSCA 220 29 August 2017

Appeal

Sentencing

Intentially cause serious injury

Mens Rea & Intention

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2016 0191

MITCHELL MANSFIELD	Applicant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	MAXWELL P and CROUCHER AJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	12 May 2017
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	29 August 2017
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2017] VSCA 220
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	DPP v Mansfield (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Montgomery, 19 August 2016)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Sentence – Intentionally cause serious injury – Sentence four years and three months’ imprisonment, non-parole period two years and three months – Offender aged 19 – Whether sentence manifestly excessive – Whether principles concerning young offenders misapplied – Victim knocked unconscious – Offender repeatedly punched unconscious victim – Early plea of guilty – Prior good character – Good prospects of rehabilitation – General deterrence – Application refused.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr D C Hallowes SC	Emma Turnbull Lawyers
For the Respondent	Mr C B Boyce SC	Mr J Cain, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

MAXWELL P:

I have had the advantage of reading in draft the reasons for judgment of Croucher AJA. For the reasons which his Honour gives, I too would refuse leave to appeal.

CROUCHER AJA:

Overview

On 18 August 2016, Mitchell Mansfield (‘the applicant’) pleaded guilty in the County Court at Bendigo to a charge of intentionally causing serious injury[1] to William Margetts. The judge then heard an opening, a plea in mitigation and submissions on sentence.
[1]Contrary to Crimes Act1958, s 16.

The next day, his Honour sentenced the applicant to four years and three months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of two years and three months. He recommended that the relevant authorities ‘give consideration to transferring [the applicant] to a youth justice centre to serve as much as that period as is deemed desirable’.[2] He also declared[3] that, but for the applicant’s plea of guilty, he would have imposed a sentence of between six and seven years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of between four and five years.
[2]DPP v Mansfield (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Montgomery, 19 August 2016) [15] (‘Reasons’).
[3]Pursuant to Sentencing Act1991, s 6AAA.

The applicant sought leave to appeal against his sentence.[4] He relied on two grounds. The first complained that the judge misapplied the principles relevant to the sentencing of young offenders. The second complained that the sentence was manifestly excessive.

[4]Pursuant to Criminal Procedure Act2009, s 278.

On 20 December 2016, Weinberg JA heard the application on the papers. His Honour refused leave to appeal on the basis that neither ground of appeal had any reasonable prospect of success.[5] He gave detailed reasons for his decision.
[5]See Criminal Procedure Act2009, s 280.

The applicant elected to renew his application for leave to appeal,[6] on the same grounds. On 12 May 2017, in addition to having the material that was before Weinberg JA, this Court had the benefit of detailed oral argument from senior counsel for each party.

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 The Queen

Details

AGLC: Mitchell Mansfield v The Queen [2017] VSCA 220
Case: [2017] VSCA 220
Decision Date: 29 August 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Mansfield, appealed against his sentence following a conviction for intentionally causing serious injury. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia. Mansfield argued that the sentence of four years and three months' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of two years and three months, was manifestly excessive and that the principles concerning young offenders were misapplied. The victim in the case was knocked unconscious and repeatedly punched while unconscious. Mansfield entered an early plea of guilty, had a prior good character, and was considered to have good prospects of rehabilitation.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and whether the sentencing principles applicable to young offenders were misapplied. The court was required to balance the need for general deterrence with the specific circumstances of the offender, including his age, plea of guilty, good character, and prospects of rehabilitation. The court needed to determine if the sentence imposed was appropriate in all the circumstances, particularly considering the principles that should guide the sentencing of young offenders.

The court considered the factors relevant to sentencing, including the gravity of the offence, the need for general deterrence, and the specific circumstances of the offender. The court found that while the sentence was severe, it was not manifestly excessive. It took into account the seriousness of the assault, the fact that the victim was rendered unconscious and repeatedly punched, and the offender’s age and prospects of rehabilitation. The court held that the sentence was appropriate in all the circumstances, and the principles concerning young offenders were correctly applied. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

No orders were made by the court.

Orders