William Mansfield v The Queen

Case [2012] HCASL 120


WILLIAM MANSFIELD

v

THE QUEEN

[2012] HCASL 120

M137/2011

  1. The applicant pleaded guilty in the County Court of Victoria to one count of armed robbery (Count 1) and one count of being a prohibited person carrying an unregistered firearm (Count 2).  The charges related to a robbery on 1 September 2008 at the Goulburn Murray Credit Union.  The maximum penalty for the crime of armed robbery to which the applicant pleaded guilty was 25 years' imprisonment.

  2. On 4 December 2009, the applicant was sentenced by Judge Mullaly to 14 years' imprisonment on Count 1 and two years' imprisonment on Count 2, with partial cumulation of the sentence imposed on Count 2 of three months.  A non‑parole period of 11 years was fixed.  In sentencing submissions, the applicant admitted 21 prior convictions, including three for armed robbery committed in Victoria and two for "robbery whilst armed" committed in New South Wales. 

  3. The applicant appealed to the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria by leave on the ground that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.  The Court of Appeal (Bongiorno JA and Whelan AJA) dismissed the applicant's appeal. 

  4. The applicant applies to this Court for special leave to appeal against the orders of the Court of Appeal on the following two grounds: that the Court of Appeal erred in law by failing to have regard to current sentencing practices, as required by s 5(2)(b) of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic); and that it erred in law by failing to conclude that the sentencing judge's order for partial cumulation of the sentence imposed for Count 2 upon the sentence imposed on Count 1 amounted to double punishment of the applicant.

  5. The special leave application to this Court is brought out of time and the applicant seeks an order under r 41.02.2 of the High Court Rules 2004 dispensing with the need to comply with the time limit in r 41.02.1.

  6. The application relates to a sentencing appeal and the applicant has not identified any question of principle suitable for determination by this Court, or any matter concerning the administration of justice, which would warrant a grant of special leave. 

  7. Pursuant to r 41.11.1 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

8          K.M. Hayne

9          15 August 2012

10  S.M. Crennan

Details
AGLC
William Mansfield v The Queen [2012] HCASL 120
Case
[2012] HCASL 120
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

William Mansfield appealed against his sentence for armed robbery and carrying an unregistered firearm, arguing that the sentence was excessively harsh. The applicant had pleaded guilty to these charges and was sentenced to 14 years' imprisonment for armed robbery and two years for carrying an unregistered firearm, with a non-parole period of 11 years. The applicant contended that the Court of Appeal had erred in law by not adequately considering current sentencing practices and by not concluding that the partial cumulation of his sentences constituted double punishment.

The legal issues that the High Court of Australia was required to address in this special leave application were whether the Court of Appeal had failed to properly consider current sentencing practices and whether it had erred in law by allowing partial cumulation of the sentences imposed. The applicant argued that these errors warranted the grant of special leave to appeal. The Court needed to determine if there was a suitable question of principle or an issue concerning the administration of justice that would justify allowing the appeal.

The High Court found that the applicant had not identified any suitable question of principle or matter concerning the administration of justice that would warrant the grant of special leave to appeal. The Court noted that the applicant's appeal was out of time and that the Court of Appeal had appropriately considered the sentencing practices and the imposition of partial cumulation. Consequently, the Court dismissed the application for special leave.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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.