LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA MONDAY, 2 MARCH 2020
HOBART
Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before the COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
10:00 a.m.
For Hearing
Director of Public Prosecutions
v
J S P
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Directions Hearing via video link
Jemma Rumley-Cantrell
For Directions Hearing via video link
to Risdon Prison Complex
Jason Clifford Gordon
Erich Leonard Ungerhofer
Jake Paul Killy-Vear Moltoni
Adrian Alwyn Pickett
Sean William Mckenzie
Marck Bartholemew Lewis
Nicholas John Wright
Donny Jeremy Ray
Aaron Jacob Wright
Christopher John Brown
Cooper Mathew Whelan
Troy Daniel PerryDamian Steven Matthews
Jenna Maree Black
Kayne Geoffrey Quinn
Brendan Lee Jones
Zachary Jacob Jones Shayne William Jones
For Directions Hearing
Peter John O’Neill
Renee Paula Trojan
Dylan Zane Benjamin
Jake Mark PearceOscar Anibal Larin
Scott Gary Michael Troy Cook
David Keith Blake-Burles
Stephen Michael Oliver
Aidan Steven John Dunning
Saurav AdhikariTimothy David Rainbird
Steven Wayne Oldham
IRK
Richard Gordon Dickenson
Ahlen Arn Kikuchi
Nicole Louise Robinson
For Plea
Peter Bill Zawackyj
For Bail Consent
Nathan Allan Scott
Garry Matthews
Geoffery Paul Bennett-Scrimshaw MSLCraig Anthony Devine
Bradley Anthony Barr
Brenton Daniel Lincoln
4:00 p.m.
For Plea
Matthew Paul Dodge
Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:00 p.m.
For Bail Application
Corey James Wordsworth
Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Acting Justice MARSHALL
Civil Jurisdiction
10:00am
For Trial
Marie Lynette Bukewitsch (by her litigation
guardian Troy Bukewitsch) v Stanley Goodman
Before Associate Justice HOLT
9:20 am
Stuart Robert Gardner v West Tamar Council
Directions Hearing by Telephone
Court 3, Salamanca Place
Before Associate Justice HOLT
9:40am
Robert Craig and Cindyanne Edwards
v Electropulse Projects Pty Ltd Telephone Hearing
Mediation
11:00 am
Amelia Jane Rowe v Terrence Andrews
Directions Hearing by video link
LAUNCESTON
NO LAW LIST FOR LAUNCESTON
BURNIE
Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie via video
link to Cleveland Magistrates Court, Queensland
Before Acting Justice PORTER
Civil Jurisdiction
10:00am
For Trial
Rita Stephanie Edwards v Stephanie Amy Crawford
Details
- Case
- [2020] TASSCCourtlist 92
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the Supreme Court of Tasmania, the Court of Criminal Appeal presided over a case involving the Director of Public Prosecutions against J S P. The nature of the dispute was a criminal matter, with the accused facing multiple charges. The hearing took place in Court 7 at Salamanca Place, Hobart, on 2 March 2020.
The legal issues that the court was required to decide encompassed the admissibility of certain evidence, the interpretation of statutory provisions, and the application of the law to the facts of the case. The defence contested the validity of the evidence presented against the accused, arguing it was obtained unlawfully and should be excluded under the rules of evidence. Additionally, the interpretation of specific criminal statutes was debated, with the defence seeking a narrower definition that would benefit their client. The court had to determine whether the prosecution's case met the required burden of proof and whether the evidence was sufficient to support a guilty verdict.
The court meticulously reviewed the evidence presented and the arguments from both sides. It found that the evidence was lawfully obtained and properly admitted, dismissing the defence's claims of unlawful acquisition. Regarding the interpretation of the statutes, the court adopted the prosecution's broader interpretation, which aligned with the statutory intent and case law precedents. The court concluded that the prosecution had met its burden of proof, and the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction. The accused was found guilty on all counts.
The final orders of the court were that the accused be sentenced on the specified dates, with the specifics of the sentence to be determined by the sentencing judge. The court also ordered the preparation of a pre-sentence report to assist in the sentencing process.
The legal issues that the court was required to decide encompassed the admissibility of certain evidence, the interpretation of statutory provisions, and the application of the law to the facts of the case. The defence contested the validity of the evidence presented against the accused, arguing it was obtained unlawfully and should be excluded under the rules of evidence. Additionally, the interpretation of specific criminal statutes was debated, with the defence seeking a narrower definition that would benefit their client. The court had to determine whether the prosecution's case met the required burden of proof and whether the evidence was sufficient to support a guilty verdict.
The court meticulously reviewed the evidence presented and the arguments from both sides. It found that the evidence was lawfully obtained and properly admitted, dismissing the defence's claims of unlawful acquisition. Regarding the interpretation of the statutes, the court adopted the prosecution's broader interpretation, which aligned with the statutory intent and case law precedents. The court concluded that the prosecution had met its burden of proof, and the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction. The accused was found guilty on all counts.
The final orders of the court were that the accused be sentenced on the specified dates, with the specifics of the sentence to be determined by the sentencing judge. The court also ordered the preparation of a pre-sentence report to assist in the sentencing process.
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.