Mansfield v the Queen - [2013] VSCA 161

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2012 0178

NEVILLE MANSFIELD
	v
THE QUEEN

---

JUDGES	BUCHANAN, ASHLEY and COGHLAN JJA
WHERE HELD	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING	28 May 2013
DATE OF JUDGMENT	25 June 2013
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION	[2013] VSCA 161
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM	Unreported, County Court of Victoria at Wangaratta, Judge Harbison, Date of Sentence 23 January 2012

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sexual offences – DNA evidence and other evidence linking the accused to the commission of the crimes sufficient to establish guilt.

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Error in maximum penalty – Applicant re-sentenced on charges affected by the error.

---

Appearances:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr D A Dann	Lewenberg & Lewenberg Solicitors
For the Respondent	Mr T Gyorffy SC	Mr C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

BUCHANAN JA:

Early in the morning of 7 April 1993, an intruder entered a house in Shepparton. The intruder was heavily disguised, having wrapped material around his head with a tea towel worn over his face.

Inside the house were a 37 year old mother, her 11 year old daughter and her six year old son and a 69 year old babysitter.

Upon entering the house, the intruder grabbed the son in a headlock and held a knife to his throat, saying to the mother: ‘Do as you are told or he will be hurt. I will slit his throat.’

The mother attempted to persuade the intruder to release her son, and the intruder eventually did so. Upon releasing the son, the intruder demanded money from the mother and the babysitter and was given money by both women. The intruder then directed the four occupants to the master bedroom, where he demanded they sit on the bed alongside one another and tell him their names. He bound and gagged each of them.

At one stage, the babysitter complained about how tightly the intruder had tied her hands together. The intruder told the mother, ‘Tell grandma to shut up,’ and then asked the babysitter, ‘What is better, having your hands tied or having your throat slit?’ When the mother pleaded with the intruder not to gag her son, the intruder replied: ‘Would you rather this or for me to slit his throat?’

The telephone rang and the intruder instructed the mother to tell the caller that she was having car troubles and would not be at work for an hour.

The intruder took the mother from the bedroom into the kitchen, where he cut open the front of her cardigan and shirt exposing her left breast. The mother pleaded with the intruder not to rape her, to which he replied: ‘Shut up, would you rather have your throat slit?’

The intruder then cut the mother’s pantyhose and underwear with a knife and pushed her on to the floor. He ran the knife across her stomach and throat and said, ‘Feel how sharp it is, I could kill you with this’.

The intruder proceeded to rape the mother…

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: Mansfield v The Queen [2013] VSCA 161
Case: [2013] VSCA 161
Decision Date: 25 June 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Mansfield v the Queen, the appellant, Mansfield, was convicted of various sexual offences and appealed against both his conviction and sentence. The appeal was heard by the High Court of Australia. The respondent, the Crown, maintained that the evidence was sufficient to uphold the conviction and that the sentence, while containing an error, did not warrant a reduction in the penalty imposed.

The primary legal issues the Court had to address were whether the evidence presented in the trial was sufficient to establish the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and whether the sentencing error necessitated a re-sentencing process. Regarding the sufficiency of evidence, the Court examined the DNA evidence and other corroborative evidence presented at trial to determine if it met the required standard of proof. The Court also considered the nature of the sentencing error and its impact on the overall penalty imposed on the appellant.

In its decision, the Court found that the combination of DNA evidence and other corroborative evidence was sufficient to establish the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court further determined that the error in the maximum penalty for some of the charges warranted a re-sentencing process. Consequently, the Court quashed the sentences for the affected charges and ordered the appellant to be re-sentenced.

The final orders of the Court were to uphold the conviction but to quash the sentences for the charges affected by the error in the maximum penalty. The appellant was to be re-sentenced on those charges.

Orders