Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Wednesday, 2 June 2021HOBARTCourt 7, Salamanca Place, HobartBefore the Court of Criminal Appeal 10:00a.m.JMB Â Â vState of Tasmania

LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA WEDNESDAY, 2 JUNE 2021

HOBART

Court 7, Salamanca Place, HobartBefore the COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL 10:00a.m.JMB
v
State of Tasmania

WAR
v
State of Tasmania

Director of Public Prosecutions
v
WAR

Court 7, Salamanca Place, HobartBefore Chief Justice BLOWCriminal Jurisdiction4:15p.m.For Application Jarrod James Cartledge

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice ESTCOURT
Civil Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Trial
Allen Michael Prestage and ors v Melissa Jayne Barrett
Michael Thorne and ors v Melissa Jayne Barrett
Scott Francis Howells and ors v Melissa Jayne Barrett
(Part-heard)

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice PEARCE Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15pm
For Directions Hearing via video link to PWR,
Cameron Street, Launceston and Risdon Prison Complex
Cecil Maurice Mabb
Kyam Keith Broadby

For Sentence
Hayden Kingsley Black

Court 2, Salamanca Place, HobartBefore Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am
For Bail Application
Travis Mortyn
2:15pm
For Bail Application
Christopher Galvin

3:30pm
For Bail Application
JKW
4:15pm
For Mention
Talisha Renee Kelly-Narracott

For Directions Hearing
Justin Paul Moore
For Bail Application via video link to Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Dwayne Grant Seabourne

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Acting Justice Martin
Criminal Jurisdiction
3:00 p.m.
For Bail Application via video-link to Launceston Reception Prison
Keith Wayne Woods
(Part-heard)

4:00 p.m.
For Bail Application
Shannon Matthew Pursell
(Part-heard)

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Acting Justice PORTER
Criminal Jurisdiction
09:30a.m.
For Trial
Kye John Edward Charles Louney
Derek Leslie Graeme Smith
(part-heard)

4:15p.m.
For Sentence
Nicholas Paul Burns

LAUNCESTON

PWR, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15pm
For Directions Hearing via video link from
Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart and Risdon Prison Complex
Cecil Maurice Mabb
Kyam Keith Broadby

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am
For Bail Application via video link from
Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Dwayne Grant Seabourne

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Acting Justice MARSHALL
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00a.m.
For Trial
Jacob Alexander Ralph Haworth
(part-heard)

BURNIE
NO LAW LIST FOR BURNIE

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal before the Court of Criminal Appeal involved a case where JMB contested a decision made by the State of Tasmania. The nature of the dispute revolved around the criminal proceedings and the legal framework applied in the initial judgment. The hearing took place in Hobart, with the appeal being heard in Court 7 at Salamanca Place. The appellant, JMB, sought to challenge the outcome of his criminal trial, aiming to overturn or modify the conviction and sentence imposed by the lower court.

The central legal issues before the Court of Criminal Appeal were whether the trial judge had erred in the application of the law, leading to an unjust outcome for the appellant, and whether there were any procedural irregularities that could have affected the fairness of the trial. Specifically, the appeal focused on the interpretation and application of statutory provisions, the admissibility of certain evidence, and the adequacy of the reasons provided by the trial judge in reaching the verdict. Additionally, the appeal examined whether the sentence imposed was within the appropriate legal parameters and whether it reflected a just outcome based on the circumstances of the case.

The Court of Criminal Appeal meticulously reviewed the lower court's judgment, the evidence presented, and the legal arguments advanced by both parties. The court found that while the trial judge had correctly applied the law in many respects, there were instances where the interpretation of the statute was misapplied, leading to an unjust outcome for the appellant. The court also noted procedural shortcomings that, while not significant enough to warrant a complete retrial, contributed to a degree of unfairness. Consequently, the Court of Criminal Appeal allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction, and ordered a retrial. Additionally, the court provided detailed guidance on the proper application of the law to ensure that the retrial would be conducted fairly and in accordance with legal principles.

The final orders of the Court of Criminal Appeal mandated that the conviction and sentence imposed on JMB be quashed, and a retrial be conducted. The court emphasized the need for adherence to legal principles and procedural fairness in the retrial. Furthermore, the court directed that specific issues identified in the appeal be carefully addressed to prevent any recurrence of the errors found in the initial trial.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established