MANSOOR -v- BULLOCH [2012] WASC 11

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2012] WASC 11
Case No:	SJA:1125/2010	Heard:	8 DECEMBER 2011
Coram:	HALL J	Delivered:	12/01/12
No of pages:	24	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal allowed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	MOHAMMAD AMIN MANSOOR STUART JOHN BULLOCH
Catchwords:	Criminal law Appeal against conviction Indecent assault Necessary component of a fair trial that the appellant's evidence be considered and assessed in the context of the evidence as a whole Other explanations for appellant's conduct ought to be considered Whether verdict of guilty is unsafe, unreasonable and cannot be supported by the evidence Whether miscarriage of justice Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 14(2) Criminal Code (WA), s 323
Case References:	Anderson (2001) 127 A Crim R 116; [2001] NSWCCA 488 Azarian v The State of Western Australia [2007] WASCA 249; (2007) 178 A Crim R 19 de la Espriella-Velasco v The Queen [2006] WASCA 31; (2006) 31 WAR 291 Fox v Percy [2003] HCA 22; (2003) 214 CLR 118 Johnson v The State of Western Australia [2008] WASCA 164; (2008) 186 A Crim R 531 Koushappis v The State of Western Australia [2007] WASCA 26; (2007) 168 A Crim R 51 Melbourne v The Queen [1999] HCA 32; (1999) 198 CLR 1 R v Liberato [1985] HCA 66; (1985) 159 CLR 507

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CRIMINAL

CITATION : MANSOOR -v- BULLOCH [2012] WASC 11 CORAM : HALL J HEARD : 8 DECEMBER 2011 DELIVERED : 12 JANUARY 2012 FILE NO/S : SJA 1125 of 2010 BETWEEN : MOHAMMAD AMIN MANSOOR

Appellant

AND

STUART JOHN BULLOCH

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : MAGISTRATE G CICCHINI

File No : PE 50422 of 2008

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Appeal against conviction - Indecent assault - Necessary component of a fair trial that the appellant's evidence be considered and assessed in the context of the evidence as a whole - Other explanations for appellant's conduct ought to be considered - Whether verdict of guilty is unsafe, unreasonable and cannot be supported by the evidence - Whether miscarriage of justice - Turns on own facts

(Page 2)

Legislation:

Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 14(2)

Criminal Code (WA), s 323

Result:

Appeal allowed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr S B Watters

Respondent : Mr M Seaman

Solicitors:

Appellant : Thames Legal

Respondent : Director of Public Prosecutions (WA)

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

Anderson (2001) 127 A Crim R 116; [2001] NSWCCA 488
Azarian v The State of Western Australia [2007] WASCA 249; (2007) 178 A Crim R 19
de la Espriella-Velasco v The Queen [2006] WASCA 31; (2006) 31 WAR 291
Fox v Percy [2003] HCA 22; (2003) 214 CLR 118
Johnson v The State of Western Australia [2008] WASCA 164; (2008) 186 A Crim R 531
Koushappis v The…

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 Mansoor v Bulloch

Details

AGLC: Mansoor v Bulloch [2012] WASC 11
Case: [2012] WASC 11
Decision Date: 12 JANUARY 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in Mansoor v Bulloch was heard by the court against a conviction for indecent assault. The appellant contested the verdict, claiming that the trial court failed to properly consider his evidence in the context of all presented evidence and overlooked other possible explanations for his conduct. The court was required to determine if the verdict of guilty was unsafe, unreasonable, and unsupported by the evidence, and whether a miscarriage of justice had occurred.

The court examined the evidence thoroughly, considering the appellant's testimony alongside other presented evidence. It emphasised the importance of evaluating the appellant's evidence within the broader context of all evidence, including alternative explanations for the appellant's conduct. The court found that the trial judge did not adequately consider the appellant's version of events and other potential explanations for his actions. This failure potentially compromised the fairness of the trial and led to an unsafe and unreasonable verdict.

After thorough analysis, the court concluded that the verdict of guilty was indeed unsafe and unreasonable, as it did not properly account for all evidence, particularly the appellant's version of events and other plausible explanations. The court found that the trial had resulted in a miscarriage of justice. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the conviction was quashed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal allowed

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.