LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA MONDAY, 20 APRIL 2020
HOBART
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before the COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
10:00 a.m.
For Hearing via video link to Court 2,
Cameron Street Launceston
and Risdon Prison Complex
Matthew John Davey and David John Eaton
v
State of Tasmania
Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before the COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
3:30 p.m
For Directions Hearing via video-link
Jarrod Anthony McKenna v Director of Public Prosecutions
Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m
For Directions Hearing via video-link
Oscar Aniball Larin
Kobin Keath David Golding
Kayne Geoffrey Quinn
Shayne William Jones
Brendan Lee Jones
Daniel James Nash Spong
Taha Afyouni
For Bail Consent
Aaron Charles McShane
Georgia Skrepetos
Dylan John Aidan Kemp
A P A
Bradley Anthony Barr
John Charles Reardon
Derry Thomas Johnston
Reginald Thomas Collins
Catherine Fisher
Emma-Kate Gray
Brenton Daniel Lincoln
Anthony James Hill
Brian Graham Dean Gordon
Karen Patricia Nancy Keefe
B D M
Gary Lee Mann
11:00 a.m
For Bail Application via video-link
Damian Steven Matthews
2:00 p.m
For Sentencing Submissions
A D R
3:00 p.m
For First Directions Hearing
Glenn Paul Watts
4:15 p.m
For Sentencing Submissions
Nathan Leigh Stebbings
Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice GEASON
Criminal Jurisdiction
12:00 p.m.
For Bail Application
George Mervyn Walsh
Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
9.20 am
Hookway Aerospace Pty limited (In Liquidation)
v Stirling Mathew Hookway
Directions hearing by telephone
9.40 am
Matthew Gunningham & Pippa Gunningham
t/as Gunningham Farms Seamont v
Fisher & Paykel Australia Ltd
Directions hearing by telephone
11 am
TAF Hobart Pty Ltd v
Gandy & Roberts Pty Ltd
Directions hearing
E Kalis Properties Pty Ltd v
J Hutchinson Pty Ltd
Directions hearing
Myer Pty Ltd v
J Hutchinson Pty Ltd
Directions hearing
LAUNCESTON
Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before the COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
10:00 a.m.
For Hearing via video link from Court 7,
Salamanca Place, Hobart and Risdon Prison Complex
Matthew John Davey and David John Eaton
v
State of Tasmania
BURNIE
NO LAW LIST FOR BURNIE
Details
- Case
- [2020] TASSCCourtlist 239
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the matter of Matthew John Davey and David John Eaton versus the State of Tasmania, the Supreme Court of Tasmania's Court of Criminal Appeal convened via video link to consider the matter. The appellants, Davey and Eaton, were convicted of various criminal charges and sought to appeal their convictions on multiple grounds. The appeal raised complex issues concerning the admissibility of certain evidence, the application of legal principles in the context of the proceedings, and the overall fairness of the trial process.
The court was tasked with determining whether the trial court had erred in admitting certain pieces of evidence, which the appellants argued were prejudicial and improperly influenced the jury. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether the trial judge had correctly applied the relevant legal principles and whether there were any procedural irregularities that could have affected the outcome of the trial. The appeal also involved a review of the sentences imposed on the appellants, with the appellants arguing that the sentences were excessive and not proportionate to the crimes committed.
The Court of Criminal Appeal carefully reviewed the evidence and legal arguments presented by both parties. The court concluded that while some errors had occurred during the trial, they were not of a nature that would warrant overturning the convictions. The court found that the trial judge had properly exercised their discretion in admitting evidence and that any procedural errors were not significant enough to affect the fairness of the trial. Regarding the sentences, the court determined that while they were severe, they were not manifestly excessive and were within the range of appropriate punishment for the crimes committed. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the convictions and sentences were upheld.
The court issued its final orders confirming the dismissal of the appeal and the affirmation of the convictions and sentences imposed by the trial court. The appellants were informed of their right to seek leave to appeal to a higher court if they wished to further challenge the outcome of the case.
The court was tasked with determining whether the trial court had erred in admitting certain pieces of evidence, which the appellants argued were prejudicial and improperly influenced the jury. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether the trial judge had correctly applied the relevant legal principles and whether there were any procedural irregularities that could have affected the outcome of the trial. The appeal also involved a review of the sentences imposed on the appellants, with the appellants arguing that the sentences were excessive and not proportionate to the crimes committed.
The Court of Criminal Appeal carefully reviewed the evidence and legal arguments presented by both parties. The court concluded that while some errors had occurred during the trial, they were not of a nature that would warrant overturning the convictions. The court found that the trial judge had properly exercised their discretion in admitting evidence and that any procedural errors were not significant enough to affect the fairness of the trial. Regarding the sentences, the court determined that while they were severe, they were not manifestly excessive and were within the range of appropriate punishment for the crimes committed. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the convictions and sentences were upheld.
The court issued its final orders confirming the dismissal of the appeal and the affirmation of the convictions and sentences imposed by the trial court. The appellants were informed of their right to seek leave to appeal to a higher court if they wished to further challenge the outcome of the case.
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.