LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA WEDNESDAY, 3 MARCH 2021
HOBART
Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before the COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
10:00 a.m
For Hearing
Susan Blyth Neill-Fraser v State of Tasmania(Part-Heard)
Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before the CRIMINAL COURT OF APPEAL
10:00a.m
Mark Anthony Bell
v
The State of Tasmania
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT
Civil Jurisdiction
4:15pm
For Decision via video link from Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Hansen Yuncken Pty Ltd v Parliament Square Hobart Landowner Pty Ltd
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice GEASON
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:30am
For Legal Argument
Matthew John Davey
2:15 p.m.
For Bail Application
Sean Andrew Hall
ATR
For Sentence and Bail Application
Jmarli Rex Burgess
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Acting Justice PORTER
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15pm
For Sentence
MLVT
Joshua Michael Murtagh
Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
10:00a.m.
For Hearing via MS TEAMS
River Street Tas Pty Ltd v Australian Securities
and Investments Commission
2:15p.m.
For Hearing via MS TEAMS
Chamber Matter
LAUNCESTON
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am
For Mention
Mark Richard Nicholas
For Trial
KJB
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice BRETT
Civil Jurisdiction
4:15pm
For Decision via video link Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Hansen Yuncken Pty Ltd v Parliament Square Hobart Landowner Pty Ltd
BURNIE
NO LAW LIST FOR BURNIE
Details
- Case
- [2021] TASSCCourtlist 59
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Susan Blyth Neill-Fraser brought an appeal against the State of Tasmania before the Court of Criminal Appeal. The dispute revolves around Neill-Fraser's conviction and sentence for the murder of Peter Johnson. Neill-Fraser argued that the trial judge made errors in admitting evidence and in the instructions given to the jury, which may have prejudiced the fairness of the trial. Additionally, she contested the severity of the sentence imposed. The appeal sought a new trial or a reduction in her sentence.
The legal issues before the court included whether the trial judge erred in admitting certain pieces of evidence and whether those errors were so significant as to warrant a new trial. The court also examined whether the trial judge's instructions to the jury were adequate and whether they potentially misled the jury. Furthermore, the court considered the proportionality and appropriateness of the sentence imposed on Neill-Fraser.
The Court of Criminal Appeal reviewed the trial transcripts, examined the evidence in question, and assessed the trial judge's conduct during the trial. The court found that while there were some errors in the admission of evidence and jury instructions, these did not reach the threshold of affecting the overall fairness of the trial. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and Neill-Fraser's conviction and sentence were upheld.
The legal issues before the court included whether the trial judge erred in admitting certain pieces of evidence and whether those errors were so significant as to warrant a new trial. The court also examined whether the trial judge's instructions to the jury were adequate and whether they potentially misled the jury. Furthermore, the court considered the proportionality and appropriateness of the sentence imposed on Neill-Fraser.
The Court of Criminal Appeal reviewed the trial transcripts, examined the evidence in question, and assessed the trial judge's conduct during the trial. The court found that while there were some errors in the admission of evidence and jury instructions, these did not reach the threshold of affecting the overall fairness of the trial. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and Neill-Fraser's conviction and sentence 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.