LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA MONDAY 22 FEBRUARY 2021
HOBART
Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before the COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
11:00 a.m
For Directions Hearing via video-link
Susan Blyth Neill-Fraser v State of Tasmania
Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction10:00am
For Directions Hearing via video link to Risdon Prison Complex
Jack Dean Grant
For Directions Hearing via video link to Hobart Reception Prison
Rodney Jeffrey Bailey
For Directions Hearing via video link to Mary Hutchinson Women’s Prison
Skye Kathleen Latham
For Directions Hearing via video link to Ron Barwick Minimum Security Prison
Taha Afyouni
For Directions Hearing
Fahad Al-Dakak Clinton Anthony Williams
Darren Maxwell Burge
Kylie Louise Wise
Bayley Wayne Bester
Joseph Andrew Tonner
Bradley Kenneth Brown
Fahed Elniz
Rebecca Jayne Eirth
Steven Charles Clarkson
Brock Callum Davey
Christine Leila Lang
Thomas Phillip Triffett
Bradley Dale Ramanauskas
NMH
Banjo Manser
Jack Bradley Harvey
Aaron Barry Morley
Matthew Lionel Knowles
Samuel William David Maple
Jeremy Mark Quinn
Jack Andrew Cole
Frederick Craig Rushton
For Sentencing Submissions
Melinda Kate Lucas Katie Jane Shearing
For Bail Application
Jacob Scott Riley-McDonald
Dillan Scott Dawson
Wade Allan Mackenzie
For Preliminary Proceedings Application
Brock Mathew Everett
For Application to Review an Order
JAR
11.15am
For Directions Hearing
Matthew Joseph Piggott
For Bail Consent
Kenneth John Bailey
Frank Andrew Mark Buchanan
Mohammad Heidari
Leigh Geoffrey Barker
Anthony John Hepworth
Matthew Lee Pearce
Sean Desmond Hawkes
Renee Helene Kelly
Jai Craig Nichols
Christopher John Howard
JD
Wayne James Benjamin
Matthew John Rex Brown
Harley George McKenzie
Jason David Vasey
Peter Stanley Cormie
Ashley Dean Brown
MJE
Daniel Robert Knowles
4:15 p.m.
For Directions Hearing via video link to Hopkins, Victoria
DER **SUPPRESS David Edwin Rapson**
For Directions Hearing
AWK
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice ESTCOURT
Criminal Jurisdiction
11:15 a.m.
For Trial
Rachelle Maree O’Brien
(Part-heard)
Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
2:15pm
For Sentence
Jacob Anthony Burdon
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice GEASON
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:00 p.m.
For Directions Hearing via video-link
Matthew John Davey
Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Acting Justice PORTER
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m
For Witness on Final Notice
Steevie Wright
For Trial
John Maxwell James Tatnell
PWR, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Acting Justice MARSHALL
Criminal Jurisdiction
11:00a.m.
For Plea via video-link from Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Amanda Maree McHugh
Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
10:00a.m
For Directions Hearing
BIS Industries Ltd and anor v Gary Arthur Clarke and anor
LAUNCESTON
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am
For Directions Hearing
Jeffrey Robert Anderson
Mark Richard Nicholas
For Trial
Heath Maxwell Lethborg
For Bail Consent
Daniel Goh
PJA
Oliver William Clark
Nicholas David Preston
For Application
Ann Louise Wooders
4:15pm
For Sentence
Kaleb Cameron Morey
BURNIE
Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Acting Justice MARSHALL
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00a.m.
For Trial
RAS
(part-heard)
For Plea
Christine Joy Radford
For Plea via video-link to Mary Hutchinson Women’s Prison
Jennifer Lee Jones
For Plea
David Smith
Shaun William Thomas
11:00a.m.
For Plea via video-link to PWR, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Amanda Maree McHugh
Details
- Case
- [2021] TASSCCourtlist 46
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the Supreme Court of Tasmania, the Court of Criminal Appeal heard a directions hearing in the matter of Susan Blyth Neill-Fraser against the State of Tasmania. The case pertains to a conviction and sentence handed down by a lower court, which the appellant seeks to appeal. The central issue before the Court of Criminal Appeal was whether the lower court had erred in its application of the law, which led to the conviction, and whether the sentence imposed was excessive or disproportionate.
The Court of Criminal Appeal began by reviewing the evidence and the legal principles relevant to the appeal. The Court examined the arguments presented by both parties, focusing on the application of legal standards and whether any errors were made that could have affected the outcome of the trial. The Court also considered whether the sentence imposed was within the appropriate range for the offence committed.
In its judgment, the Court found that there were no substantial errors in the lower court's application of the law that warranted an appeal. The Court determined that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, and the sentence imposed was proportionate to the crime. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal and upheld both the conviction and the sentence. The final orders of the Court reflect this decision, confirming that the appeal is dismissed without any further action required.
The Court of Criminal Appeal began by reviewing the evidence and the legal principles relevant to the appeal. The Court examined the arguments presented by both parties, focusing on the application of legal standards and whether any errors were made that could have affected the outcome of the trial. The Court also considered whether the sentence imposed was within the appropriate range for the offence committed.
In its judgment, the Court found that there were no substantial errors in the lower court's application of the law that warranted an appeal. The Court determined that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, and the sentence imposed was proportionate to the crime. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal and upheld both the conviction and the sentence. The final orders of the Court reflect this decision, confirming that the appeal is dismissed without any further action required.
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.