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

Case [2021] TASSCCourtlist 170


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
4:15pm
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

Details
AGLC
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 [2021] TASSCCourtlist 170
Case
[2021] TASSCCourtlist 170
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of JMB versus the State of Tasmania was heard in the Supreme Court of Tasmania's Court of Criminal Appeal. The appellant, JMB, sought to appeal a conviction and sentence previously imposed by a lower court. The nature of the appeal involved both the process and outcome of the initial trial. The appeal court was tasked with reviewing the lower court's handling of procedural aspects, the sufficiency of evidence, and the appropriateness of the sentence.

The legal issues before the Court of Criminal Appeal centred on the fairness and legality of the appellant's trial. Specifically, the court examined whether there were any procedural errors or missteps by the trial judge that could have influenced the outcome unfavourably for the appellant. Additionally, the sufficiency of the evidence presented to secure a conviction was scrutinized, along with the proportionality and appropriateness of the sentence handed down. The appeal also raised questions regarding the appellant's right to a fair trial and whether any legal principles were misapplied during the trial.

In delivering its judgment, the Court of Criminal Appeal meticulously reviewed the proceedings of the trial, focusing on any procedural irregularities and the application of legal principles. The court found that while there were some procedural missteps, they did not reach a level that would warrant overturning the conviction. The evidence was deemed sufficient to support the conviction, and the sentence was found to be within the appropriate range. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence of the lower court were upheld.

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.