LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA MONDAY, 28 SEPTEMBER 2020
HOBART
Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before the COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am
For Hearing
Margaret Anne Otto v State of Tasmania
Director of Public Prosecutions v Margaret Anne OttoCourt 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Directions Hearing via video link
Jodie Kay Moffatt
For Directions Hearing via video link
to Court 1, Magistrates Court, Burnie
Tyler Anthony James Causon
Jonathon Henry Holmes
Stephen John Hunt
For Directions Hearing via video link
to Wilfred Lopes Centre
Jarrad Christian Robaard
For Directions Hearing via video link
to Risdon Prison Complex
Alani Povalu Moeakiola
Michael Linden Dennison
Justin Kevin Pearce
Adam John Rex Stone
Joshua Dillon Astell
Mitchell Allie
Benjamin John Howlett
Robert Maxwell BrownKye John Edward Charles Louney
Justin Craig CleaverAnthony John Hepworth
Luke Matthew John ChattersPeter David Leaman
For Directions Hearing via video link
to Hobart Reception Prison
Jed Curtis Leggett
For Directions Hearing via video link
to Ron Barwick Minimum Security Prison
Damon Peter King
Shane Michael Emmerton
Joshua Blair Read
Samuel Jayden Paul Smith
For Directions Hearing
Andrew Brett Bell
Kylie Louise Wise
Jason David Vasey
James Stuart Walker
Damian Steven MatthewsPaul Luke Mason
Tony Matthew White
Judd Paul Kraemers
Craig John Smith
John Charles Reardon
Adrian Michael Flounders
Joshua Scott Webster
For Application
GLL
For Plea
Jake Laurence Ford
Angus James Ford
Scott Steven Saxelby
For Bail Consent
Patrick Simon Bailey
Kai Kimmo Juvakka
BTH
Ricky John Crossin
James Mathew Johnson
Geoffery Paul Bennett-Scrimshaw
Daniel Nicky Smith
Daniel Robert Knowles
Rebecca Jayne Eirth
Connor Richard Cordwell
APA
Jack Willem Harris
Brenden Edward Cotter
Kenneth Shaw
MLVT
James Christopher Steven Flaskas
JAJ
Nicole Louise Robinson
Joshua Michael Murtagh
Tara Mary Elizabeth Irwin
Adrian Alwyn Pickett
Lyndon Ivan Bean
PJS
Amanda Louise White
PT
Joshua George Hector Clark
Jamie Ellis McDiarmid
Thomas Ezekiel Ricketts
Daniel John Ernest Dadson
Harley George McKenzie
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice GEASON
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15 p.m.
For Sentence
Vanessa Lee Wolf
For Bail Application
Christina Vernessa Watson
Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Acting Justice PORTER
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15p.m.
For Sentence via video-link
to Risdon Prison Complex
Dean Phillip Braslin
For Sentence
Philip Overeem
LAUNCESTON
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00a.m.
For Final Notice
Jacqueline McCullagh
For Remittal
IMN For Directions Hearing
Isaac Jess Hall
Ethan Daniel Baker
Nicholas David Preston
For Mention
Ruhua Liu
Shayne Michael Murphy
Scott Deane Radin
Steven John Henderson
For Backstop Trial
Christopher Ernest Denman
Daniel James Crisp
For Trial
John Benjamin Adams
4:15p.m.
For Sentence via Video Link to PWR, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Michael Samuel Charlesworth
For Plea
SJG
BURNIE
Details
- AGLC
- Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Monday, 28 September 2020 [2020] TASSCCourtlist 887
- Case
- [2020] TASSCCourtlist 887
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case before the Supreme Court of Tasmania involves Margaret Anne Otto, who is being prosecuted by the State of Tasmania. The legal issue before the Court of Criminal Appeal was whether the trial judge had erred in his approach to the admissibility of certain evidence. The appeal was heard by Chief Justice Blow, who was tasked with reviewing the trial judge's decision and determining whether any errors had been made.
The court examined the trial judge's approach to the admissibility of evidence, specifically whether the judge had applied the correct legal test and whether the evidence in question was relevant and admissible under the law. The court considered whether the trial judge had properly balanced the probative value of the evidence against any potential prejudice it might cause. The court also examined whether the trial judge had properly exercised his discretion in admitting the evidence, and whether any errors made were significant enough to affect the outcome of the trial.
After reviewing the evidence and the trial judge's approach, the court found that the trial judge had erred in his approach to the admissibility of certain evidence. The court held that the trial judge had not applied the correct legal test and had failed to properly balance the probative value of the evidence against any potential prejudice it might cause. The court also found that the trial judge had not properly exercised his discretion in admitting the evidence, and that the errors made were significant enough to affect the outcome of the trial. As a result, the court allowed the appeal and quashed the conviction.
The court ordered a retrial of the case, and directed that the evidence in question be excluded from the new trial. The court also ordered that the parties be given an opportunity to make submissions on any other issues that may arise during the retrial. The decision of the court was final, and no further appeal was possible.
The court examined the trial judge's approach to the admissibility of evidence, specifically whether the judge had applied the correct legal test and whether the evidence in question was relevant and admissible under the law. The court considered whether the trial judge had properly balanced the probative value of the evidence against any potential prejudice it might cause. The court also examined whether the trial judge had properly exercised his discretion in admitting the evidence, and whether any errors made were significant enough to affect the outcome of the trial.
After reviewing the evidence and the trial judge's approach, the court found that the trial judge had erred in his approach to the admissibility of certain evidence. The court held that the trial judge had not applied the correct legal test and had failed to properly balance the probative value of the evidence against any potential prejudice it might cause. The court also found that the trial judge had not properly exercised his discretion in admitting the evidence, and that the errors made were significant enough to affect the outcome of the trial. As a result, the court allowed the appeal and quashed the conviction.
The court ordered a retrial of the case, and directed that the evidence in question be excluded from the new trial. The court also ordered that the parties be given an opportunity to make submissions on any other issues that may arise during the retrial. The decision of the court was final, and no further appeal was possible.
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.