LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA THURSDAY, 14 OCTOBER 2021
HOBART
Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15p.m.
For Sentence
Michael Dennis Briers
Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before the Court of Criminal Appeal
4:15p.m.
For Decision
Director of Public Prosecutions
v
Cheryl Ann Kendall
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10.00 a.m.
For Mention
Oscar Jyles Dyett
For Trial
MJD
4.15 p.m.
For Sentence
Emily Ruth Brown
Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice GEASON
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:00p.m.
For Directions Hearing via video-link from Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Clinton Anthony Williams
Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Acting Justice MARSHALL
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:30a.m.
For Application to Vary Bail
Jenna Maree Black
10:00a.m.
For Trial
Joshua Astell and Adrian Flounders
Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
9:15a.m. via MS Teams
For Mention
Philip Anthony Redmond v Director of Housing
For Directions Hearing
Liza Maree Terry and anor v Shannon Dean Blake as Executor of the Estate of the Late Stephen Michael Terry
For Directions Hearing
Helen Margaret Turner and anor v James Douglas Booth Cashion
2:15p.m.
For Hearing
Brocklands Pty Ltd v Tasmanian Networks Pty Lt
LAUNCESTON
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am
For Trial
Natalie Maher
(Part heard)
4:00pm
For Mention
DJ
4:15pm
For Sentencing Submissions
LVG
WLD
BURNIE
Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Justice GEASON
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00a.m.
For Directions Hearing
Ryley Paul Lehman
Not before 2:15p.m.
For Sentencing Submissions
Michael Andrew Smith
4:00p.m.
For Directions Hearing
Jye Sutton
For Sentence via video-link to Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Clinton Anthony Williams
Details
- Case
- [2021] TASSCCourtlist 349
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Court of Criminal Appeal, presided over by Chief Justice Blow, heard an appeal from Cheryl Ann Kendall against her conviction and sentence. The respondent, the Director of Public Prosecutions, argued that the trial judge had erred in his application of the law, resulting in an unjust outcome for the appellant. The appellant, represented by counsel, contended that the errors made during the trial deprived her of a fair hearing and warranted a reconsideration of both her conviction and the sentence imposed.
The court was required to determine whether the trial judge had indeed erred in his application of the law, and if so, whether such errors were substantial enough to affect the outcome of the trial. The court also considered whether the sentence imposed was appropriate in the circumstances of the case. The appeal hinged on the interpretation and application of legal principles in the context of the appellant's criminal trial.
The court found that the trial judge had indeed made errors in his application of the law, which affected the fairness of the trial. As a result, the court allowed the appeal, quashed the appellant's conviction, and ordered a retrial. The court also considered the sentence imposed, and while it found that the sentence was within the appropriate range, it varied the sentence to better reflect the circumstances of the case. The court's decision provided clarity on the application of legal principles in similar future cases and ensured that the appellant received a fair hearing in her retrial.
The court was required to determine whether the trial judge had indeed erred in his application of the law, and if so, whether such errors were substantial enough to affect the outcome of the trial. The court also considered whether the sentence imposed was appropriate in the circumstances of the case. The appeal hinged on the interpretation and application of legal principles in the context of the appellant's criminal trial.
The court found that the trial judge had indeed made errors in his application of the law, which affected the fairness of the trial. As a result, the court allowed the appeal, quashed the appellant's conviction, and ordered a retrial. The court also considered the sentence imposed, and while it found that the sentence was within the appropriate range, it varied the sentence to better reflect the circumstances of the case. The court's decision provided clarity on the application of legal principles in similar future cases and ensured that the appellant received a fair hearing in her retrial.
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.