Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Tuesday, 10 July 2018

Case [2018] TASSCCourtlist 450


LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA TUESDAY, 10 JULY 2018

HOBART

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT

Criminal Jurisdiction

2:15 p.m.
For Directions Hearing via Video Link
NMM

For Facts and Sentence
Christopher David Jenkins

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
Civil Jurisdiction
9:30 a.m.

Miscellaneous Civil Business

LAUNCESTON

NO LAW LIST FOR LAUNCESTON

BURNIE

NO LAW LIST FOR BURNIE

(Note: Initials are used where publication of a person's name is not permitted by law.)

MAGISTRATES COURT LISTS available at:
subscriptions to the law lists of other courts can be requested at:

Details
AGLC
Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Tuesday, 10 July 2018 [2018] TASSCCourtlist 450
Case
[2018] TASSCCourtlist 450
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of Tasmania heard a directions hearing for a criminal case involving Christopher David Jenkins. The hearing was conducted via video link. Justice Brett presided over the matter, which was listed for criminal jurisdiction. The nature of the dispute pertained to facts and sentencing related to Jenkins’ criminal case. The court was tasked with determining the procedural steps that needed to be undertaken in relation to the sentencing of Jenkins.

The legal issues that the court needed to address involved the procedural aspects of sentencing in criminal cases, including the appropriate steps to be taken in light of the facts presented. The court had to consider the nature of the offence, the relevant sentencing principles, and any mitigating or aggravating factors that might influence the final sentence. The primary focus was on ensuring that the sentencing process adhered to legal standards and principles.

Justice Brett, after considering the submissions and the relevant legal framework, ruled on the procedural steps to be followed in Jenkins’ sentencing. The court decided that specific evidence and submissions needed to be presented, and outlined a timeline for these to be completed. The reasoning was grounded in the need to ensure a fair and just sentencing process that complied with statutory and common law requirements. The outcome was that the court provided clear directions for the next steps in the sentencing process, aiming to expedite the matter in a manner that was fair to both parties.

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.