Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania, Thursday, 30 May 2019

LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA, THURSDAY, 30 MAY 2019

HOBART

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Before the Court of Criminal Appeal

10:00 a.m.

For Hearing

Robert Michael Allen

State of Tasmania

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Before Chief Justice BLOW

Criminal Jurisdiction

2:15 p.m.

For Bail Application

Wade Allan Mackenzie

APA

In Chambers, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Before Chief Justice BLOW

Criminal Jurisdiction

4:15 p.m.

For Telephone Directions Hearing

JAR

SAB

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Before Justice ESTCOURT

Criminal Jurisdiction

9:30 a.m.

For Sentence

Stephanie Rose Lewis-Gumley

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Before Acting Justice PORTER

Criminal Jurisdiction

10:00 a.m.

For Sentence

Luke Murray John Jago

For Mention via Video Link to

Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie

Rebecca Marie Dyett

For Sentence via Video Link to

Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie

David Ronald Smith

For Plea in Mitigation via Video Link to

Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie

Travis James Spaulding

For Discharge via Video Link to

Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie and

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston

Tracey Riley-Davis

For Sentence via Video Link to Court 1,

Alexander Street, Burnie and

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston

JAR

10:30 a.m.

For Directions Hearing via Video Link

Peter John O’Neill

For Bail Application via Video Link to

Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie

and Launceston Reception Prison

Samuel Peter Newell

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Before Acting Justice MARTIN

Criminal Jurisdiction

2:15 p.m.

For Bail Application

James Samuel Burrill

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Before Associate Justice HOLT

By Video Link to Launceston

9:15 am

Miscellaneous Civil Business

9:30 am

Miscellaneous Civil Business

LAUNCESTON

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston

Before Acting Justice PORTER

Criminal Jurisdiction

10:00 a.m.

For Discharge via Video Link from

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart

and Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie

Tracey Riley-Davis

For Sentence via Video Link from

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart

and Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie

JAR

BURNIE

Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie

Before Acting Justice PORTER

Criminal Jurisdiction

10:00 a.m.

For Mention via Video Link from

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Rebecca Marie Dyett

For Sentence via Video Link from

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart

David Ronald Smith

For Plea in Mitigation via Video Link from

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Travis James Spaulding

For Discharge via Video Link from

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart

and Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston

Tracey Riley-Davis

For Sentence via Video Link from

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart

and Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston

JAR

10:30 a.m.

For Bail Application via Video Link from

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart

and Launceston Reception Prison

Samuel Peter Newell

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Robert Michael Allen brought an appeal against the State of Tasmania before the Court of Criminal Appeal in the Supreme Court of Tasmania. The appeal arose from a conviction and sentence imposed by a lower court on Mr Allen. The legal issues before the court were whether the conviction was based on sufficient evidence and whether the sentence was appropriate and within the legal limits. The court was tasked with reviewing the entire case to determine if any errors in law or procedure had been made that could affect the outcome of the appeal.

The court thoroughly examined the evidence presented in the lower court proceedings to assess its sufficiency. It also reviewed the sentencing remarks to ensure they were within the legal framework and took into account all relevant mitigating and aggravating factors. The court considered whether the sentence imposed was proportionate to the offence and whether it complied with statutory guidelines. Additionally, the court examined the legal procedures followed during the trial to ensure that Mr Allen's rights were adequately protected.

In its decision, the court found that the evidence was sufficient to uphold the conviction. The court also determined that the sentence imposed was within the legal limits and appropriately balanced the circumstances of the case. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the original conviction and sentence were upheld. The court's ruling was based on a comprehensive review of both the evidence and the legal processes involved in the lower court's proceedings.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established