SHAW -v- MANSELL [2012] WASC 451

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2012] WASC 451
Case No:	SJA:1067/2012	Heard:	3 OCTOBER 2012
Coram:	HALL J	Delivered:	30/11/12
No of pages:	21	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Extension of time granted Leave to appeal granted for grounds 1 and 2 and refused for ground 3 Appeal dismissed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	PHILIP FRANCIS SHAW ELISSA CLAIRE MANSELL
Catchwords:	Criminal law Appeal against conviction Assault and unlawful wounding Self defence Defence against a home invader Whether magistrate erred in his application of the law to the facts Whether the magistrate erred in his consideration of self defence Whether the magistrate erred in his consideration of when a person could be a home invader
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Alford v Magee [1952] HCA 3; (1952) 85 CLR 437 Braysich v The Queen [2011] HCA 14; (2011) 243 CLR 434 Francis v Todd [2011] WASC 185 James v Sievwright [2002] WASCA 343

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CRIMINAL

CITATION : SHAW -v- MANSELL [2012] WASC 451 CORAM : HALL J HEARD : 3 OCTOBER 2012 DELIVERED : 30 NOVEMBER 2012 FILE NO/S : SJA 1067 of 2012 BETWEEN : PHILIP FRANCIS SHAW

Appellant

AND

ELISSA CLAIRE MANSELL

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : MAGISTRATE S M WILSON

File No : PE 21353 of 2011, PE 21354 of 2011

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Appeal against conviction - Assault and unlawful wounding - Self defence - Defence against a home invader - Whether magistrate erred in his application of the law to the facts - Whether the magistrate erred in his consideration of self defence - Whether the magistrate erred in his consideration of when a person could be a home invader

(Page 2)

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Extension of time granted

Leave to appeal granted for grounds 1 and 2 and refused for ground 3
Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr S B Watters

Respondent : Mr L M Fox

Solicitors:

Appellant : Holgate Legal

Respondent : Director of Public Prosecutions (WA)

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

Alford v Magee [1952] HCA 3; (1952) 85 CLR 437
Braysich v The Queen [2011] HCA 14; (2011) 243 CLR 434
Francis v Todd [2011] WASC 185
James v Sievwright [2002] WASCA 343

(Page 3)

HALL J

Introduction

1 On 26 February 2012 the appellant was convicted following a trial in the Magistrates Court of one count of aggravated unlawful assault, contrary to s 313(1)(a) of the Criminal Code (WA) and one count of aggravated unlawful wounding, contrary to s 301(1) of the Criminal Code. The circumstance of aggravation in each case was that a child was present at the time of the offence. The appellant was sentenced to 9 months' imprisonment for the assault and 15 months' imprisonment for the aggravated unlawful wounding, those terms to be served concurrently. He now seeks leave to appeal…

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 Shaw v Mansell

Details

AGLC: SHAW -v- MANSELL [2012] WASC 451
Case: [2012] WASC 451
Decision Date: 30 NOVEMBER 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Shaw v Mansell, the appellant, Mr. Mansell, appealed against his conviction for assault and unlawful wounding, which was handed down by a magistrate. The case arose from an incident where Mr. Mansell injured the respondent, Mr. Shaw, during an altercation at Mr. Shaw's residence. Mr. Mansell claimed self-defence, asserting that Mr. Shaw was a home invader. The legal issues before the court included whether the magistrate had erred in applying the law to the facts, particularly regarding the consideration of self-defence and the definition of a home invader.

The court meticulously reviewed the magistrate's application of the relevant legal principles to the specific facts of the case. It examined whether the magistrate correctly assessed the proportionality of Mr. Mansell's response and whether he appropriately considered the context in which the incident occurred. The court also assessed whether the magistrate had correctly interpreted the criteria for someone to be considered a home invader. After thorough analysis, the court concluded that while there were some minor errors in the magistrate's reasoning, they did not materially affect the outcome of the case.

Consequently, the court granted an extension of time and leave to appeal on the grounds related to the application of self-defence and the interpretation of a home invader. However, the court refused leave to appeal on the ground pertaining to the proportionality of the response. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed as the errors found did not warrant a different result. The final orders included an extension of time and the granting of leave to appeal on certain grounds, while refusing leave on others, and dismissing the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

Extension of time granted

Leave to appeal granted for grounds 1 and 2 and refused for ground 3

Appeal dismissed

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.