Mapham v Bannerman
Case
•
[2013] ACTSC 157
•13 August 2013
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Mapham v Bannerman [2013] ACTSC 157
[2013] ACTSC 157
13 August 2013
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Vincent Mapham and Heather Mapham appealed against their convictions and sentences following their trial in the Magistrates' Court. Vincent was convicted of using false evidence, while Heather was convicted of being an accessory after the fact to that offence. The dispute centred on the admissibility of a receipt given by Vincent to an informant and the failure of the Magistrate to uphold a no case submission. The Full Court of the Supreme Court was required to determine whether the appeal should be allowed based on the grounds that the verdict was unsafe and unsatisfactory, or if the Magistrate had made an error that resulted in a substantial miscarriage of justice.
The court examined whether the Magistrate erred by applying Jones v Dunkel reasoning against Vincent, which held that a person in the company of an investigating officer should be cautioned to avoid impropriety in obtaining evidence. The court concluded that the reasoning was not applicable in this case as the evidence of the subsequent offence was not improperly obtained. Furthermore, the court found that the failure to caution did not render the evidence inadmissible. Additionally, the court considered whether the Magistrate erred in rejecting the no case submission. It held that although the evidence implicated Heather, it did not incriminate her to the extent that the Magistrate should have accepted the submission.
The appeal by Vincent was dismissed, and the Magistrate’s orders were confirmed. The court held that the Magistrate did not make an error that resulted in a substantial miscarriage of justice. Conversely, the appeal by Heather was upheld, her conviction and sentence were set aside, and a verdict of not guilty was entered. The court found that the evidence did not establish her guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The court ordered that the appeal by Vincent Mapham is dismissed, and the Magistrate’s orders are confirmed. The appeal by Heather Mapham is upheld, her conviction and sentence are set aside, and a verdict of not guilty is entered.
The court examined whether the Magistrate erred by applying Jones v Dunkel reasoning against Vincent, which held that a person in the company of an investigating officer should be cautioned to avoid impropriety in obtaining evidence. The court concluded that the reasoning was not applicable in this case as the evidence of the subsequent offence was not improperly obtained. Furthermore, the court found that the failure to caution did not render the evidence inadmissible. Additionally, the court considered whether the Magistrate erred in rejecting the no case submission. It held that although the evidence implicated Heather, it did not incriminate her to the extent that the Magistrate should have accepted the submission.
The appeal by Vincent was dismissed, and the Magistrate’s orders were confirmed. The court held that the Magistrate did not make an error that resulted in a substantial miscarriage of justice. Conversely, the appeal by Heather was upheld, her conviction and sentence were set aside, and a verdict of not guilty was entered. The court found that the evidence did not establish her guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The court ordered that the appeal by Vincent Mapham is dismissed, and the Magistrate’s orders are confirmed. The appeal by Heather Mapham is upheld, her conviction and sentence are set aside, and a verdict of not guilty is entered.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Criminal Law
Legal Concepts
-
Appeal
-
Admissibility of Evidence
-
Use False Evidence
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Mapham v Bannerman [2013] ACTSC 157
Most Recent Citation
Goodwin v Williams [2018] ACTSC 279
Cases Citing This Decision
10
Goodwin v Williams
[2018] ACTSC 279
Glanville v Harris
[2017] ACTSC 110
Lancaster v Hyde
[2016] ACTSC 50
Cases Cited
30
Statutory Material Cited
1
R v Naa
[2009] NSWSC 851
Regina v Patsalis and Spathis [No 3]
[1999] NSWSC 718
Dyers v The Queen
[2002] HCA 45