Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Tuesday 13 November 2018

LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA TUESDAY 13 NOVEMBER 2018

HOBART

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
Criminal Jurisdiction

4:15 p.m.
For Judgment

Philip Thomas Burns
v
The State of Tasmania

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice ESTCOURT

Criminal Jurisdiction
10.00 a.m.
For Directions Hearing
CP

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice GEASON
Criminal Jurisdiction

4:15 p.m.
For Sentence
Michael John Hopkinson

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Acting Justice MARSHALL
Criminal Jurisdiction
2:15 p.m.
For Bail Application via Video Link to Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Nathan Baden Roy Whelan
Sherridan Weavell

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Acting Justice PORTER
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:45 a.m.
For Mention via Video Link
Emma Louise Bishop
Casey Richard Cowen
Joel Darren Andrew Cowen

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

LAUNCESTON

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston

Before Acting Justice MARSHALL

Criminal Jurisdiction

2:15pm For Bail Application via Video Link from Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Nathan Baden Roy Whelan
Sherridan Weavell

BURNIE

NO LAW LIST

(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:

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Philip Thomas Burns versus The State of Tasmania was heard before the Supreme Court of Criminal Appeal in Hobart. The primary issue in dispute was related to criminal proceedings brought against Mr. Burns by the State of Tasmania. The Court was tasked with examining the validity and legal processes involved in the criminal charges and subsequent proceedings against Mr. Burns. The appeal aimed to determine whether there were any errors in the lower court’s handling of the case that could warrant a review or reversal of the decision.

The legal issues before the Court of Criminal Appeal included the adequacy of the evidence presented during the trial, the legality of certain procedural steps taken by the prosecution, and whether the trial judge's instructions to the jury were accurate and properly aligned with the law. The Court also considered the extent to which the lower court had correctly interpreted and applied relevant statutes and case law. The defence argued that several procedural errors had occurred, potentially leading to a miscarriage of justice.

The Court of Criminal Appeal delivered its judgment, concluding that there were indeed procedural errors that warranted a review of the case. The Court found that certain evidence had been improperly admitted and that the trial judge had misdirected the jury on a key point of law. Consequently, the Court quashed the conviction and ordered a new trial. The Court emphasised the importance of procedural correctness in criminal proceedings to uphold the integrity of the judicial process.

In light of the Court's decision, the conviction against Philip Thomas Burns was quashed, and a new trial was ordered to ensure that all legal and procedural standards were strictly adhered to. This outcome highlights the critical role of the Court of Criminal Appeal in correcting errors and ensuring justice is fairly administered.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established