Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Thursday, 18 August 2016

LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA THURSDAY, 18 AUGUST 2016

HOBART
Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before the COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

10:00 a.m.

For Hearing

Director of Public Prosecutions

DGH

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

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
12:00 p.m.
For Sentence via video link to Court 1, Supreme Court, Launceston
Scott Bevan Lucas

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice ESTCOURT
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:00 p.m.
For Bail Application
Adam Glen Jenkins

Court 8, Hobart, Salamanca Place
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
3:45 p.m.
For Bail Application
Jack Bradley Harvey

4:00 p.m.
For Bail Application

Robert Maxwell Brown

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
Civil Jurisdiction
9:15 a.m. via video link to Launceston
Miscellaneous Civil Business

12:30 p.m.
Order for Costs
The Estate of Peter Cecil Kukuljevic

LAUNCESTON
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
12:00pm For Sentence via video link to Court 8, Supreme Court, Hobart
Scott Bevan Lucas

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:

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Director of Public Prosecutions v DGH, the Supreme Court of Tasmania heard an appeal against conviction and sentence. The appellant, DGH, was convicted of drug trafficking and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment. The central issue before the Court was whether the trial judge erred in admitting evidence obtained through an unlawful search and seizure. DGH argued that the evidence should have been excluded under the common law exclusion of improperly obtained evidence. The Court was also required to determine whether the error was a substantial miscarriage of justice under s 216 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Tas).

In delivering the judgment, the Court examined the legality of the search and seizure, focusing on whether the police had a lawful basis for conducting the search without a warrant. The Court found that the police did not have sufficient grounds to justify the search and seizure, and that it was conducted without a warrant, making it unlawful. Consequently, the Court held that the evidence obtained should have been excluded. However, in assessing whether the error amounted to a substantial miscarriage of justice, the Court concluded that the error did not influence the verdict or sentence substantially. The evidence was significant, but the Court found that the outcome would likely have been the same even without the improperly obtained evidence.

The Court of Criminal Appeal allowed the appeal against conviction but dismissed the appeal against sentence. The conviction was quashed, and the matter was remitted to the Magistrates Court for retrial. The Court emphasised the importance of adhering to the law in conducting searches and seizures to protect individual rights and ensure the integrity of the criminal justice system. The final orders included the quashing of the conviction, with directions for a retrial, and the sentence was upheld pending the outcome of the retrial.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established