Amended Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Tuesday, 22 November 2016

AMENDED LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA TUESDAY, 22 NOVEMBER 2016

HOBART

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before the COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
9:45 a.m.
For Judgment
Mark Raymond Roland
v
State of Tasmania

Acting Director of Public Prosecutions
v
Mark Raymond Roland

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Trial
Wayne Gregory Pattison
(Part Heard)

4:00 p.m.
For Plea
Jamie Leigh Feil

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Trial
Corey Graeme Farr
(Part-Heard)

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction

4:15 p.m.
For Directions Hearing via video link
From Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Klaus Dieter Neubert

Court 2, Salamanca Place
Before Justice ESTCOURT
Civil Jurisdiction
11:30 a.m
In Court
For Consequential Orders
Tamzin Peta Hookway v Stirling Mathew Hookway

2:15 p.m.
In Court
For Trial
Nicholas Cashmore Dennis & Anor v Telfer Anne Dennis & Ors
(Part Heard)

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
Civil Jurisdiction
9:30 a.m.
Miscellaneous Civil Business

LAUNCESTON

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston

Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am For Trial
WMC

4:15pm For Further Submissions
Vicki Maree Fleming

BURNIE

Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Justice Brett

Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.

For Trial
Bianca Jane Dolega
(Part-Heard)

4:00 p.m.
For Mention
Adam John Blake

Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Via video link to Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
4:15 p.m.

For Directions Hearing
Klaus Dieter Neubert

(Note: Initials are used where publication of a person's name is not permitted by law.)

MAGISTRATES COURT LISTS available at:

Email subscriptions to the law lists of other courts can be requested at:

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The court was called upon to decide whether the respondent's right to a fair trial had been violated by the suppression of evidence by the Crown. The central issue was whether the trial judge erred in excluding certain evidence that the respondent sought to adduce in his defence. The respondent argued that the exclusion of this evidence amounted to a miscarriage of justice and deprived him of a fair trial. The Crown, on the other hand, contended that the evidence was properly excluded because it was irrelevant or prejudicial.

The Court of Criminal Appeal held that the trial judge did not err in excluding the evidence in question. The court found that the evidence was either irrelevant to the issues before the court or was of a nature that its admission would have unfairly prejudiced the respondent. The court further determined that the exclusion of the evidence did not result in a miscarriage of justice and did not deprive the respondent of a fair trial. The appeal was dismissed.

As a result of the court's decision, the conviction and sentence of the respondent stand affirmed. The Court of Criminal Appeal did not make any further orders in relation to the appeal.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established