Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Thursday, 17 September 2020

LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA THURSDAY, 17 SEPTEMBER 2020

HOBART

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before the COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
9:30 a.m.
For Judgment via video-link to Mary Hutchinson
Women’s Prison and PWR, Cameron Place,
Launceston and Supreme Court, Alexander Street, Burnie
Belinda Leone Colbran
v
State of Tasmania

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice ESTCOURT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Bail Consent
Christopher Mac Hatty
Timothy Albert Evens

Trial
Justin Paul Moore
(Part-heard)

4:00 p.m.
For Mention
Rahn Marcus Hansson
BJB

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
11:30am
For Sentencing Submissions
Jessica Gay Schreiweis

4:15pm
For Sentencing Submissions via video link
to Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Tyler John Mayne

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT
Civil Jurisdiction
2:15pm
For Hearing
Eunice Beverley McCarthy
v
Saltwood Pty Ltd as former trustee of the
JD McCarthy Family Trust

Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice GEASON
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Directions Hearing via video link
from Court 1, Supreme Court, Burnie
MJW

4:15 p.m.
For Sentence via video link from
Court 1, Supreme Court, Burnie
Emma-Kate Gray

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
2:15p.m.
For Hearing – Originating Application
Danielle Cash v Craig Darrell Allen Cash

LAUNCESTON

Protected Witness Room, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before the COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
9:30 a.m.
For Judgment via video-link from Supreme Court 7,
Salamanca Place, Hobart
Belinda Leone Colbran
v
State of Tasmania

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00a.m.
For Trial
Wayne Keith Herlihy

For Bail Consent
Ruhua Liu
Shayne Michael Murphy

4:15p.m.
For Sentencing Submissions via Video Link
Dillon John Cruse

For Facts and Sentence
DIJL

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15pm
For Sentencing Submissions via video link
from Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Tyler John Mayne

BURNIE

Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before the COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
9:30 a.m.
For Judgment via video-link from Supreme Court 7,
Salamanca Place, Hobart
Belinda Leone Colbran
v
State of Tasmania

Court 1, Alexander Street, BurnieBefore Justice GEASONCriminal Jurisdiction10:00 a.m.
Nathan Baden Roy Whelan

For Directions Hearing via video link
to Court 2, Supreme Court, Salamanca Place, Hobart
MJW

For Bail Consent
Michael Eddie French

4:15 p.m.
For Sentence via video link to Court 2,
Supreme Court, Salamanca Place, HobartEmma-Kate Gray

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Belinda Leone Colbran versus the State of Tasmania was heard by the Court of Criminal Appeal in Hobart. The appellant, Belinda Leone Colbran, was challenging the decision of a lower court. The nature of the dispute involved the interpretation and application of criminal law, focusing on the specific circumstances and decisions made during her trial and sentencing. The Court of Criminal Appeal, with Justice ESTCOURT presiding, was tasked with reviewing the lower court's handling of the case and determining whether there were any errors in the application of the law or procedure that warranted a different outcome.

The legal issues central to the appeal were whether the lower court correctly interpreted and applied the law in Colbran's case, particularly in relation to the evidence presented and the sentencing process. The appellant argued that there were significant errors that affected the fairness and correctness of the trial and sentencing outcomes. The court was required to examine the transcripts, legal submissions, and the broader context of the case to determine if any legal principles were misapplied or misunderstood.

The Court of Criminal Appeal found that there were indeed errors in the lower court's handling of the case, particularly in the interpretation and application of certain legal principles. Justice ESTCOURT concluded that these errors materially affected the outcome of the trial and sentencing. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the case was remitted back to the lower court for a re-trial. The court's decision was based on a thorough review of the legal arguments and the evidence, ensuring that the principles of justice and fairness were upheld.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established