Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania, Wednesday, 7 March 2018

LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA, WEDNESDAY, 7 MARCH 2018

HOBART

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before the COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
10:00 a.m.
For Hearing
Matthew John Upston
v
State of Tasmania

To Follow
For Hearing
Philip Thomas Burns
v
State of Tasmania

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Trial
Robert Michael Allen
(Part-Heard)

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT

Criminal Jurisdiction

2:15 p.m.

For Bail Variation via video link to
Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie

Peter Leslie Coventry

For Bail Application
Shannon Rainbird
James Fitzgerald

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Before Justice GEASON

Criminal Jurisdiction

4:00 p.m.

For Bail Application

Michael Hopkinson

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Before Acting Justice SLICER

Criminal Jurisdiction

10:00 a.m.

For Facts and Sentence

MDS

For Sentence

Duc Van Nguyen

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
Civil Jurisdiction
2:30 p.m.
Directions/Set Timetable
Barbara Etter
v
Legal Profession Board of Tasmania

LAUNCESTON

NO LAW LIST FOR LAUNCESTON

BURNIE

Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction

2:15 p.m.
For Bail Variation via video link from
Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Peter Leslie Coventry

(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:

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Matthew John Upston has appealed against his conviction and sentence to the Court of Criminal Appeal. The appeal was heard in Hobart before Justice Wood. The nature of the dispute revolves around the conviction for an offence under the Dangerous Drugs Act 1967 (Tas) and the subsequent sentencing. The appeal challenges both the conviction and the sentence imposed by the lower court. The court was required to determine whether the conviction was legally sound and whether the sentence was appropriate and just. The legal issues centred on the admissibility of certain evidence, the correctness of the trial judge's directions to the jury, and the proportionality of the sentence.

The Court of Criminal Appeal meticulously reviewed the trial proceedings, the evidence presented, and the arguments from both parties. Justice Wood examined whether the lower court properly exercised its discretion in admitting evidence and whether the trial judge's directions to the jury were legally sound. In assessing the sentence, the court considered the principles of proportionality and deterrence in the context of drug-related offences. The appeal was ultimately dismissed, with the Court of Criminal Appeal affirming both the conviction and the sentence imposed by the lower court. The reasoning underscored the robustness of the trial process and the appropriateness of the sentence in light of the circumstances of the case.

No further orders were made, and the appeal was dismissed. The decision reaffirms the conviction and sentence, providing clarity and finality to the legal issues presented. This outcome ensures that the findings and determinations of the lower court stand, subject to the review and scrutiny of the Court of Criminal Appeal.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established