LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA FRIDAY, 27 MARCH 2020
HOBART
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before the COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
9:30 a.m.
For Judgment via video-link
Director of Public Prosecutions
v
J S P
In Chambers
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Civil Jurisdiction
12:00 p.m.
For Telephone Directions Hearing
James Timothy Casey
v
Janice May Loone
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00a.m.
For Bail Application via video link
Nigel Eric Brewer
Rodney Gene Crosswell
Samuel Patrick Burke Drummond
For Bail Variation
Craig John Smith
2:15p.m.
For Plea via video link
Dylan Roy Bramich
Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
10am
In the Matter of the Testator’s Family Maintenance Act 1912 s 3
Sally Baily and Cheryl Maree Bennett v Mark Richard De Vries
and Patrick James Forbes Lunn and Cheryl Frances Voss
and Cathy Barbara Griggs
Status of Children Act application (resumption of hearing)
LAUNCESTON
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00a.m.
For Application to Vary Bail via Telephone
Jarom James Triffitt
For Mention
Daniel Paul Carr
For Bail Application and Preliminary
Proceedings Application via Video Link
Stephen James Williams
For Bail Consent
Caide Geordie Haines
2:15p.m.
For Bail Application via Video Link
Kerrie Anne George
BURNIE
NO LAW LIST FOR BURNIE
Details
- Case
- [2020] TASSCCourtlist 119
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Supreme Court of Tasmania's Court of Criminal Appeal heard the matter of Director of Public Prosecutions v J S P. The case involved a criminal appeal against a conviction and sentence. The appellant, J S P, contested the decision made by a lower court, arguing that there were errors in the proceedings that warranted a reconsideration of the conviction or sentence.
The legal issues before the Court of Criminal Appeal included whether there were procedural errors during the original trial, whether the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, and whether the sentence imposed was appropriate. The appellant's counsel argued that the lower court misapplied the law, leading to an unjust outcome, and that the sentence was disproportionate to the offence.
The Court of Criminal Appeal reviewed the arguments and evidence presented. It considered whether the trial court had followed the correct legal procedures and whether the evidence was adequate to uphold the conviction. After deliberation, the Court found that there were no substantial procedural errors, the evidence was sufficient, and the sentence was reasonable. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the conviction and sentence of the lower court.
The legal issues before the Court of Criminal Appeal included whether there were procedural errors during the original trial, whether the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, and whether the sentence imposed was appropriate. The appellant's counsel argued that the lower court misapplied the law, leading to an unjust outcome, and that the sentence was disproportionate to the offence.
The Court of Criminal Appeal reviewed the arguments and evidence presented. It considered whether the trial court had followed the correct legal procedures and whether the evidence was adequate to uphold the conviction. After deliberation, the Court found that there were no substantial procedural errors, the evidence was sufficient, and the sentence was reasonable. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the conviction and sentence of the lower court.
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.