LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA, WEDNESDAY, 11 NOVEMBER 2020
HOBART
Court 8, Salamanca Place, HobartBefore the COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL 10:00 a.m.
For Hearing
Director of Public Prosecutions
v
Corey Graham Vincent
11:00 a.m.For HearingWilliam Adair Rothwell and Jacob Michael Brennan
v
State of Tasmania
2:30 p.m.
For Hearing
Drew Alexander Jones
v
State of Tasmania
Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice ESTCOURT
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:00 p.m.
For Sentence
Justin Paul Moore
Nicholas John Barrett
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction 4:15p.m.
For Bail Application
Travis Terrens
Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am
For Bail Consent
Natasha Anne Hickey
Timothy Evans
For Mention
Bobby Gene Jacobson
10:00am
For Legal Argument
Shaun Edward Hodges
4:15pm
For Sentencing Submissions via video link to
Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston
AMB
Court 7, Salamanca Place, HobartBefore Justice GEASONCriminal Jurisdiction10:00 a.m.
For Trial
Justin Richard Maynard
2:30 p.m.
For Mention
JDP
Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
9:20a.m. via Telephone
For Directions Hearing
Holly Joy Rowlands v Neil Lyndon Grice and ors
12:30p.m.
For Hearing
Penelope Jane Smith as administrator of the
estate of the late James Maurice Smith
v Tasmanian Health Service
2:15p.m. via Skype
For Hearing
Natasha Lakaev v Carli McConkey
LAUNCESTON
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Acting Justice PORTER
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00a.m.
For Mention
Daniel James Crisp
For Trial
Christopher Brendan Keil
4:15p.m.
For Plea
Christopher James Bennett
Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15pm
For Sentencing Submissions via video link from
Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
AMB
BURNIE
NO LAW LIST FOR BURNIE
Details
- Case
- [2020] TASSCCourtlist 1110
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Director of Public Prosecutions v Corey Graham Vincent was heard by the Supreme Court of Tasmania's Court of Criminal Appeal. The defendant, Corey Graham Vincent, was appealing a conviction and sentence imposed by a lower court. The nature of the dispute involved the validity of the conviction and the appropriateness of the sentence imposed on Vincent.
The legal issues before the Court of Criminal Appeal included whether there were any errors in the trial process that could have affected the outcome, and if the sentence was proportionate to the offence committed. The defence argued that there were procedural errors during the trial that warranted a new trial, and that the sentence was excessively harsh.
In its reasoning, the Court of Criminal Appeal found that there were no procedural errors that would necessitate a new trial, and the conviction stood as valid. Regarding the sentence, the Court considered the severity of the offence and the need to deter similar future conduct, but also took into account the mitigating factors presented by the defence. Ultimately, the Court decided that while the sentence was severe, it was not disproportionate to the crime committed.
The Court of Criminal Appeal upheld the conviction but varied the sentence to reflect a more balanced approach considering all the circumstances. The final orders included the confirmation of the conviction and a revised sentence for Corey Graham Vincent.
The legal issues before the Court of Criminal Appeal included whether there were any errors in the trial process that could have affected the outcome, and if the sentence was proportionate to the offence committed. The defence argued that there were procedural errors during the trial that warranted a new trial, and that the sentence was excessively harsh.
In its reasoning, the Court of Criminal Appeal found that there were no procedural errors that would necessitate a new trial, and the conviction stood as valid. Regarding the sentence, the Court considered the severity of the offence and the need to deter similar future conduct, but also took into account the mitigating factors presented by the defence. Ultimately, the Court decided that while the sentence was severe, it was not disproportionate to the crime committed.
The Court of Criminal Appeal upheld the conviction but varied the sentence to reflect a more balanced approach considering all the circumstances. The final orders included the confirmation of the conviction and a revised sentence for Corey Graham Vincent.
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.