Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Thursday 29 August 2019

LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA THURSDAY 29 AUGUST 2019

HOBART

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Before the COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

9:45 a.m.

For Judgment

Christopher David Jenkins

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Before the Court of Criminal Appeal

Criminal Jurisdiction

10:00a.m.

For Hearing

Leigh John Parker

The State of Tasmania

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Before Chief Justice BLOW

Criminal Jurisdiction

10:00 a.m.

For Mention via video link to

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston

Brett Matthew Freeman

For Bail Application

Kayla Maree Smith

4:15 p.m.

For Directions Hearing

Cameron James Riley

State of Tasmania

Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Before Justice PEARCE

Criminal Jurisdiction

4:00p.m.

For Adjournment of Criminal Trial by Video Link

to Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston

Kent David Thomas and Jess Kent Thomas

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Before Justice BRETT

Criminal Jurisdiction

4:00p.m

For Sentence

DOA

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Before Justice GEASON

2:15 p.m

For Directions Hearing

Chauncy Aaron Bell

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Before Acting Justice PORTER

Criminal Jurisdiction

4:00 p.m.

For Sentence

Adam James Bishop

LAUNCESTON

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston

Before Chief Justice BLOW

Criminal Jurisdiction

10:00 a.m.

For Mention via video link from

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Brett Matthew Freeman

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston

Before Justice PEARCE

Criminal Jurisdiction

4:00p.m.

For Adjournment of Criminal Trial by Video Link

from Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Kent David Thomas and Jess Kent Thomas

BURNIE

NO LAW LIST FOR BURNIE

MAGISTRATES COURT LISTS available at:

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of Tasmania sat on Thursday 29 August 2019, hearing a variety of criminal matters. One notable case was that of Leigh John Parker versus the State of Tasmania. This appeal against conviction and sentence was heard by Chief Justice BLOW in Criminal Jurisdiction. The case involved significant legal issues related to the interpretation and application of criminal law, specifically focusing on the admissibility of evidence and the application of sentencing principles.

The court was required to decide whether certain evidence, which was potentially prejudicial, should have been excluded from the trial. Additionally, the appeal challenged the sentence imposed, arguing that it was excessive and not properly reflective of the mitigating circumstances presented. The court's reasoning centred on a meticulous examination of the trial proceedings, the legal standards governing evidence admissibility, and the proportionality of the sentence imposed. Ultimately, the Court of Criminal Appeal determined that the trial judge had correctly admitted the evidence and appropriately considered the mitigating factors in sentencing. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the original conviction and sentence were upheld.

The final orders of the court included the dismissal of the appeal and the affirmation of the lower court's decision in all respects. This outcome ensures that the conviction and sentence remain in effect, barring any further legal recourse available to the appellant.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established