Law Lists For The Supreme Court Of Tasmania Thursday, 4 March 2021HOBARTCourt 8, Salamanca Place, HobartBefore Chief Justice BLOWCriminal Jurisdiction2:15 p.m.For Sentence Justin Kevin Pearce    For Directions...

Case [2021] TASSCCourtlist 61


LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA THURSDAY, 4 MARCH 2021

HOBARTCourt 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
2:15 p.m.
For Sentence
Justin Kevin Pearce    

For Directions Hearing
AWK 

For Application
Sean William McKenzie

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15p.m
For Legal Argument

MJP     Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Acting Justice MARTIN
Civil Jurisdiction
2:15pm
Bob Brown Foundation Inc.
v
Sustainable Timber Tasmania
Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Acting Justice PORTER
Criminal Jurisdiction
2:15pm
For Sentence
Joshua Michael Murtagh

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
9:15a.m. via MS Teams and video link
to Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston
For Directions Hearing
Jodie Jones v Bradley Robert Jones

For Directions Hearing
Robert John Ruddick and anor as Executors of the Estate of Anthony Hendrikus Montauban v Clare Elizabeth Tedeschi and ors.

For Hearing
In the Matter of the Estate of Clarice Joyce Sexton

11:00a.m.
For Hearing
Director of Public Prosecutions v Shane Peter Gill and anor

LAUNCESTON

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:30am
For Trial
KJB    
(Part-heard)

Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Associate Justice HOLT
9:15a.m. via MS Teams and video link
from Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
For Directions Hearing
Jodie Jones v Bradley Robert Jones

For Directions Hearing
Robert John Ruddick and anor as Executors of the Estate
of Anthony Hendrikus Montauban v Clare Elizabeth Tedeschi and ors.

For Hearing
In the Matter of the Estate of Clarice Joyce Sexton

BURNIE

NO LAW LIST FOR BURNIE

Details
Case
[2021] TASSCCourtlist 61
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Tasmania, before Chief Justice Blow, Justin Kevin Pearce was sentenced for his criminal activities. The case involved determining the appropriate punishment for the defendant's actions, which were deemed to warrant a custodial sentence. The court considered the nature and circumstances of the offence, as well as relevant sentencing principles, in arriving at a just outcome. The legal issues included assessing the seriousness of the offence, the defendant's culpability, and any mitigating or aggravating factors present in the case.

The court examined the evidence presented during the trial, including witness testimonies and the defendant's background. It also took into account any submissions made by the prosecution and the defence. In determining the appropriate sentence, the court balanced the need for punishment with the principles of deterrence, rehabilitation, and proportionality. The Chief Justice considered the impact of the offence on the victim and the community, as well as any relevant statutory guidelines and precedents. Ultimately, the court found that a custodial sentence was necessary to adequately address the defendant's criminal conduct.

In light of the court's findings, Chief Justice Blow imposed a sentence of imprisonment on Justin Kevin Pearce. The specific term and conditions of the sentence were determined based on the court's assessment of the case, taking into account all relevant factors. The court's decision was communicated to the parties involved, and any necessary arrangements for the defendant's detention were made. The outcome of the case reflects the court's commitment to upholding the rule of law and ensuring that justice is served in criminal matters.

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.