Legal Research
Cases
Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania, Tuesday 28 May 2019

Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania, Tuesday 28 May 2019

Case [2019] TASSCCourtlist 110

Sentencing

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

TUESDAY 28 MAY 2019

LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA, TUESDAY 28 MAY 2019

HOBART

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Before the COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

10am

For Hearing

RJH

The State of Tasmania

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Before Chief Justice BLOW

4.15pm

For Sentencing Submissions

John Robert Claude Scotney

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Before Justice BRETT

Criminal Jurisdiction

4pm

For Sentencing Submissions

Rachel Ellen Morgan

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Before Associate Justice HOLT

9:30am

Miscellaneous Civil Business

12pm

Miscellaneous Civil Business

2:15pm

Miscellaneous Civil Business

LAUNCESTON

NO LAW LIST FOR LAUNCESTON

BURNIE

Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie

Before Justice WOOD

Criminal Jurisdiction

10 am

For Trial

Darren Ward Gale

(Part-Heard)

Details

AGLC: Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania, Tuesday 28 May 2019 [2019] TASSCCourtlist 110
Case: [2019] TASSCCourtlist 110
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Tasmania, the Court of Criminal Appeal heard the case of RJH v The State of Tasmania. The dispute revolved around the conviction and sentence of the appellant, RJH, for charges related to a serious criminal offence. The appellant sought to appeal both the conviction and the sentence imposed by the lower court. Chief Justice Blow presided over the hearing, which took place in Hobart.

The legal issues before the court included whether the trial judge had erred in admitting certain evidence, the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction, and the appropriateness of the sentence imposed. The appellant's counsel argued that the trial judge had misapplied the law in admitting certain evidence, which led to an unsafe and unsatisfactory verdict. Additionally, the appellant contended that the sentence was excessive and should be reviewed by the Court of Criminal Appeal.

In delivering the judgment, the Court of Criminal Appeal considered the arguments presented by both parties. The court examined the evidence and the legal principles applicable to the admissibility of evidence, the sufficiency of evidence for conviction, and the principles of sentencing. The court found that the trial judge had not erred in admitting the evidence and that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction. Regarding the sentence, the court determined that while the sentence was at the higher end of the scale, it was not manifestly excessive and did not warrant interference by the Court of Criminal Appeal.

As a result, the Court of Criminal Appeal dismissed the appeal against conviction and sentence. The judgment affirmed the lower court's decision and upheld the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant.

Orders