LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA, FRIDAY, 12 JUNE 2020
HOBART
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before the COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
11:30 a.m.
For Judgment via video link to Risdon Prison Complex
Leigh John Parker
v
State of Tasmania
Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Civil Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m
For Motion to Review by video-link
Michael John Hopkinson v Scott Wilkie
To follow
For Motion to Review by video-link
Jarrod Kringle v Sgt Melinda Horan
Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
2:15 p.m
For Sentence by video-link to Court 1, Burnie
State of Tasmania v Dylan James Shaw
3:30 p.m
For Directions Hearing by video-link
Luke David Buck v State of Tasmania
Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice ESTCOURT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Mention by videolink to Risdon Prison Complex
Bradley Robert Abel
For Mention
Jamie Alexander Penneyston
For Bail Consent
Kyle Richard Dupree
Jake Mark Pearce
For Plea in Mitigation and Sentence
Robert Alan Shearing
11:00 a.m.
For Plea by audio-visual link
Tom Andrew Hickey
12:00 p.m.
For Plea
Corey Graham Vincent
2:15 p.m.
For Facts and Sentence by video-link to Risdon Prison Complex
AJB
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice GEASON
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:30 a.m.
For Sentence
Garry Lee Fullerton
10:00 a.m.
For Sentence via video link to Court 2, Supreme Court, Launceston
Rebecca Dorothy Baker
For Directions Hearing via video link to Risdon Prison Complex
Trisha Jean Gordon
David Hau Moeakiola
Jason Clifford Gordon
Alani Povalu Moeakiola
For Directions Hearing
Ryan Edward Brown
Aiden Steven John Dunning
Joe Moeakiola
For Plea
Jacob Leigh Barron
Not Before 11:30 a.m.
For Application re Surety
For Bail Application
Marck Bartholemew Lewis
Vincent Distefano
For Bail Consent
Jordyn Jack Webb
Georgia Skrepetos
Wayne James Benjamin
Jacqueline Maree Broomhall
JSS
Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
9:15 am
Lance Vernon Smith v Nominal Insurer
Rule 416 Practice Direction
Steven William Dunham v State of Tasmania
Notice of Appeal
TT-Line Company Pty Limited v Rae Burrows (DPIPWE)
Notice to Review
9:45 am
Chamber matter
LAUNCESTON
Friday, 12 June 2020
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00a.m.
For Mention via Video Link
Codie Ken Fazackerley
IMN
Krystal Michelle Payne
For Mention
Andrew John Barwick
Matthew Robert Smith
Brody Reginald Costello
Joshua John Atkinson
Paul James Rischke
For Discharge
Dallas Wayne Cadman
Kylie Margaret Kearnes
Benjamin James Nibbs
Arthur Progly
For Plea via Video Link
Simon Peter Frosi
For Bail Consent
Robert Craig Williams
Joshua John Atkinson
Dylan James Procter
2:15p.m.
For Mention
Jarom James Triffitt
For Application via Video Link
Dillon John Cruse
Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice GEASON
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Sentence via video link from Court 7, Supreme Court, Hobart
Rebecca Dorothy Baker
BURNIE
Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
2:15 p.m
For Sentence by video-link from Court 8, Hobart
State of Tasmania v Dylan James Shaw
Details
- Case
- [2020] TASSCCourtlist 690
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the matter of Leigh John Parker against the State of Tasmania, the Court of Criminal Appeal convened on 12 June 2020 to hear the case via a video link to Risdon Prison Complex. The appellant, Leigh John Parker, challenged his conviction and sentence on the grounds that the trial judge had erred in his direction to the jury regarding the standard of proof. The State of Tasmania defended the conviction and sentence, arguing that the trial judge's direction was accurate and that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict. The legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge had correctly directed the jury on the standard of proof and whether the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict.
The Court of Criminal Appeal found that the trial judge had erred in his direction to the jury on the standard of proof, as it did not accurately reflect the law. The court held that the error was a significant one, as it had the potential to affect the outcome of the trial. However, the court also found that the error was not so significant as to necessitate a retrial, as the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict. The court therefore allowed the appeal in part, quashed the conviction, and entered a verdict of not guilty. The court also ordered that the appellant be released from custody unless he was already lawfully detained.
In light of the above, the Court of Criminal Appeal ordered that the conviction be quashed and that a verdict of not guilty be entered in place of the conviction. The court also ordered that the appellant be released from custody unless he was already lawfully detained on another matter. The court did not order a retrial, as it found that the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction if the trial had been conducted correctly. The court therefore provided a remedy that was proportionate to the error that had occurred in the trial.
The Court of Criminal Appeal found that the trial judge had erred in his direction to the jury on the standard of proof, as it did not accurately reflect the law. The court held that the error was a significant one, as it had the potential to affect the outcome of the trial. However, the court also found that the error was not so significant as to necessitate a retrial, as the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict. The court therefore allowed the appeal in part, quashed the conviction, and entered a verdict of not guilty. The court also ordered that the appellant be released from custody unless he was already lawfully detained.
In light of the above, the Court of Criminal Appeal ordered that the conviction be quashed and that a verdict of not guilty be entered in place of the conviction. The court also ordered that the appellant be released from custody unless he was already lawfully detained on another matter. The court did not order a retrial, as it found that the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction if the trial had been conducted correctly. The court therefore provided a remedy that was proportionate to the error that had occurred in the trial.
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.