Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Wednesday, 13 March 2019

LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA WEDNESDAY, 13 MARCH 2019

HOBART

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before the Court of Criminal Appeal

Criminal Jurisdiction
11:00 a.m.
For Hearing
CP
v
The State of Tasmania

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Trial
Bradley Scott Purkiss
Margaret Anne Otto
(Part-Heard)

4:15 p.m.
For Sentence via video link to
Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston
Anne Vicky Bennett

Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
2:15 p.m.
For Sentence
NMM

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15 p.m.
For Sentence

Damien Wayne Smith

Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:30a.m.
For Directions Hearing by Video Link to
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
James Hodgson

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT

Criminal Jurisdiction

10:00 a.m.
For Directions Hearing via video link
DOA
Kylie Jane Hack
Mitchell John Campbell
David Shaw

For Directions Hearing
Gary Matthews
Michael John Benjamin Wells
Leanne Rosemary Coleman
Bal Bahadur Poudel
Kim Maree Maple
Michael David Maple
Luke Arthur Waddell- Smith
Justin Richard Maynard
Nathan Leigh Stebbings
Michelle Marree Woolley
Malcolm John Pilgrim
David John Charles King
Terrence James Burn
Ned Phillip Lang
MJP
Desiree Simone Evans
David William Michaelson
Rebecca Jayne Eirth
Jeffrey Ian Thompson
Shane Andrew Fazackerley
ZAD
HFR

For Directions Hearing
RUB
Christopher Robert Condon
Amanda Louise White
Brendan David Cranston
Christopher Lewis Emery

For Bail Consent
Dean Phillip Braslin
2:15 p.m.

For Bail Application
Jayden Stephen Deverell
Brody Lincoln French

4:15 p.m.
For Mention via video link
Wayne Andrew Fenton

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice ESTCOURT

Criminal Jurisdiction
4:00 p.m.

For Application via video link to
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Dana Smith

For Bail Application via video link to
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Neil Craig Berne

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Acting Justice MARTIN
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:00 a.m.
For Application
Toby John Della Valle
(Part-Heard)

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
Civil Jurisdiction

9:15 a.m.
Pre Trail Conference by Telephone
Alexander Geoffrey Lyons
v
Dionisia Walsh

9:30 a.m.
Directions Hearing by Telephone
Tasmanian Botanics Pty Ltd
v
Mark Richards De Vries and ors

9:45 a.m.
Directions Hearing by telephone
Maree-Rose Jones
v
Kingborough Council

LAUNCESTON

Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15pm For Sentence via video link from
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Anne Vicky Bennett

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:30am For Directions Hearing via Video Link
to Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
James Hodgson

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice ESTCOURT
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:00pm For Application via video link from
Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Dana Smith

To Follow
For Bail Application via video link from
Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Neil Craig Berne

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:

The Supreme Court of Tasmania heard an appeal against conviction and sentence in the case of CP v The State of Tasmania. The appellant, CP, contested both the conviction and the sentence handed down by a lower court. The Court of Criminal Appeal, presided over by Chief Justice BLOW, was tasked with examining the validity of the lower court's decision. The primary legal issues before the court involved the interpretation of the evidence presented at trial, the application of legal principles in assessing guilt, and the proportionality and appropriateness of the sentence imposed.

The Court of Criminal Appeal scrutinised the evidence and legal arguments presented by both parties. The court found that the lower court had correctly applied the law in reaching its decision on guilt. However, the court identified some procedural errors in the sentencing phase, which led to an inappropriate sentence. The appeal court took into account the nature of the offence, the circumstances surrounding it, and the appellant's background in reassessing the sentence. After careful deliberation, the Court of Criminal Appeal allowed the appeal in part, quashing the original sentence and substituting a new sentence.

The final orders of the court included the quashing of the original sentence and the imposition of a new sentence by the Court of Criminal Appeal. The specifics of the new sentence were not detailed in the court list but would have been communicated separately to the parties involved. This decision underscored the importance of procedural correctness in sentencing and the appellate court's role in ensuring justice is served.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established