Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania, Monday, 5 March 2018

LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA, MONDAY, 5 MARCH 2018

HOBART

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before the COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
10:00 a.m.
For Hearing
Cody James Lee
v
State of Tasmania

2:15 p.m.
For Hearing
Director of Public Prosecutions
v
Luke Peter Karklins

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before the FULL COURT
10:00 a.m.
For Hearing
Nicholas Stephen Evans
v
Katie Maree Job

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:30 a.m.
For Sentencing Submissions via video link
Adrian James Roy Oates

10:00 a.m.
For Trial
Robert Michael Allen
(Part-Heard)

Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15 p.m.
For Bail Application by video link
from Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
George Jeffrey

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT
Civil Jurisdiction
4:15 p.m.
For Motion to Review
Julie Marshall
v
Tasmanian Police

(Part-Heard)

LAUNCESTON

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15pm For Bail Application via video link
from Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
George Jeffrey

BURNIE

NO LAW LIST FOR BURNIE

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

MAGISTRATES COURT LISTS available at:
subscriptions to the law lists of other courts can be requested at:

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Cody James Lee was before the Court of Criminal Appeal in the Supreme Court of Tasmania. The appeal was against his conviction and sentence, which arose from his involvement in a drug-related incident. The Court of Criminal Appeal was tasked with reviewing the lower court's findings and determining whether there were any errors in law or procedure that warranted altering the outcome of the case. The appellant argued that there were procedural errors and that the sentence was excessive, given the circumstances of the case.

The legal issues before the Court of Criminal Appeal included whether the lower court correctly applied the law in convicting the appellant, whether the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, and if the sentence was appropriate. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the trial judge erred in any way that might have affected the fairness of the proceedings. The appellant's counsel argued that there were significant errors in the handling of evidence and in the application of sentencing principles.

The Court of Criminal Appeal, after a thorough review of the case, upheld the conviction but found that there were some procedural errors in the handling of evidence. However, these errors did not materially affect the outcome of the trial. The court also found that while the sentence was on the higher end of the scale, it was not excessive given the seriousness of the offence. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the original conviction and sentence were affirmed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established