Legal Research
Cases
Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Monday, 3 October 2016

Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Monday, 3 October 2016

Case [2016] TASSCCourtlist 210

Criminal Jurisdiction

Security for Costs

Criminal Law

Civil Litigation & Procedure

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA MONDAY, 3 OCTOBER 2016

HOBART
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before the CRIMINAL COURT OF APPEAL
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Hearing
Adrian Wayne Smillie
v
State of Tasmania

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction

12:00 p.m.
For Bail Application
Kylie Anne Hack
(Part-heard)

2:15 p.m.
For Application
Joel James Lorkin

4:00 p.m.
For Mention
JCP

For Sentence
Luke Rogers

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice TENNENT
Civil Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Security for Costs
Paul Francis Allison
v
Tuna Tasmania Pty Ltd and ors

LAUNCESTON
No list for Launceston.

BURNIE

No list for Burnie.

(Note: Initials are used where publication of a person's name is not permitted by law.)

MAGISTRATES COURT LISTS available at:

Email subscriptions to the law lists of other courts can be requested at:

Details

AGLC: Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Monday, 3 October 2016 [2016] TASSCCourtlist 210
Case: [2016] TASSCCourtlist 210
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Adrian Wayne Smillie brought an appeal against the State of Tasmania before the Supreme Court of Tasmania, Criminal Jurisdiction. The appeal centred around the conviction and sentencing of the appellant for various criminal charges. The appellant contested the validity of the conviction and the appropriateness of the sentence imposed by the lower court.

The legal issues before the court were whether there were any procedural errors in the trial that could have influenced the outcome, and if the sentence was excessive or inappropriate. The appellant argued that there were errors in the handling of evidence and that the sentence was disproportionate to the crimes committed.

The court examined the arguments presented and reviewed the evidence and proceedings from the lower court. Justice Brett found that while there were some procedural issues, they did not materially affect the outcome of the trial. The court also considered the severity and nature of the crimes, as well as the appellant's criminal history, and determined that the sentence was appropriate. The appeal was thus dismissed.

The final orders of the court affirmed the conviction and sentence as imposed by the lower court, with no changes made to either the conviction or the sentence.

Orders