LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA, WEDNESDAY 7 OCTOBER 2021
HOBART
Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart Before the COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL 10:30a.m.For Hearing Director of Public Prosecutions
v
Cheryl Ann Kendall
Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
3:00pm
For Sentence
Emma-Lisa Eronen
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10.00am
For Trial
MJD
4.00pm
For Mention
MJD
4.15pm
For Sentence
Oscar Jyles Dyett
4.15pm
For Sentencing Submissions
Joshua Edward Peter Darling
Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart Before Acting Justice MARSHALLCriminal Jurisdiction
4:00p.m.
For Bail Application
Timothy Geoffrey Briers
4:15p.m.
For Bail Application
Nathan Baden Roy Whelan
Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
10:00a.m. via MS Teams
For Security for Costs
Andrew John SCOTT as trustee of the estate of the late Peter Pittiglio v Dean Marcus PITTIGLIO
12:30p.m.
For Directions Hearing
Tracy Lee BRANDIS-GRAY v Amanda YOUNG and anor
2:15p.m.
For Hearing
TPT Wealth Limited v Martina McPEACE
LAUNCESTON
NO LAW LIST FOR LAUNCESTON
BURNIE
NO LAW LIST FOR BURNIE
Details
- Case
- [2021] TASSCCourtlist 337
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Supreme Court of Tasmania's Court of Criminal Appeal heard an appeal by the Director of Public Prosecutions against the sentence imposed on Cheryl Ann Kendall. The appeal centred on the severity of the sentence handed down to Kendall for her criminal conduct. The case was heard by Justice Pearce. The key legal issue before the court was whether the original sentence was manifestly inadequate or excessive, considering the nature and circumstances of the offence and the principles of sentencing. The court was tasked with determining if the original sentence should be varied or set aside in light of the appeal.
In considering the appeal, Justice Pearce examined the evidence presented, the submissions made by both parties, and the principles of sentencing relevant to the case. The court took into account the seriousness of the offence, the culpability of the offender, and the need for the sentence to reflect community standards of justice. The judge also considered the mitigating and aggravating factors that were relevant to the case. After a thorough review, Justice Pearce concluded that the original sentence was indeed manifestly inadequate. The court determined that the sentence did not adequately reflect the seriousness of the offence and the need for general deterrence.
In light of the findings, Justice Pearce varied the original sentence to a term of imprisonment with a non-parole period that better aligned with the gravity of the offence and the principles of sentencing. The court's decision provided a clear directive on the appropriate sentence for the offence in question, ensuring that the punishment was commensurate with the crime committed. This ruling reinforced the importance of adhering to the principles of sentencing in the criminal justice system.
In considering the appeal, Justice Pearce examined the evidence presented, the submissions made by both parties, and the principles of sentencing relevant to the case. The court took into account the seriousness of the offence, the culpability of the offender, and the need for the sentence to reflect community standards of justice. The judge also considered the mitigating and aggravating factors that were relevant to the case. After a thorough review, Justice Pearce concluded that the original sentence was indeed manifestly inadequate. The court determined that the sentence did not adequately reflect the seriousness of the offence and the need for general deterrence.
In light of the findings, Justice Pearce varied the original sentence to a term of imprisonment with a non-parole period that better aligned with the gravity of the offence and the principles of sentencing. The court's decision provided a clear directive on the appropriate sentence for the offence in question, ensuring that the punishment was commensurate with the crime committed. This ruling reinforced the importance of adhering to the principles of sentencing in the criminal justice system.
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.