Supreme Court of Tasmania Law for Wednesday, 3 February 2016

SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA LAW FOR WEDNESDAY, 3 FEBRUARY 2016

HOBART
Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before the COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:45 a.m.
For Judgment via video link to Court 1, Supreme Court, Burnie
Acting Director of Public Prosecutions
v
Mark William Eather

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice TENNENT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Mention
George Joseph Bilinski
Lionel David Brown

For Directions Hearing
Bevin Irwin Swan

For Directions Hearing and Bail Application
Duc Van Nguyen

For Preliminary Proceedings Application and Bail Application
Justin Richard Maynard

2:15 p.m.
For Plea
Jack Owen Read

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
10.00 a.m.
For Mention
A Witness

For Plea
RMW

11.30 a.m.
For Legal Argument
LCC
SJB

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice ESTCOURT
Civil Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Hearing
Shane Maurice Le Rossignol
v
Elizabeth Avery

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
Civil Jurisdiction
11:00 a.m. via video link to Launceston
Injunction
Susan Burge
v
Commonwealth Bank of Australia

4:00 p.m.
Directions Hearing by Telephone
Liam Lawrence
v
Australiansuper Pty Ltd and Anor

4:15 p.m.
Directions Hearing by Telephone
Sharlene Brown and Anor
v
Paul Henry De Deuge & Ors

4:30 p.m.
Directions Hearing by Telephone
Peter Pittiglio
v
Dean Pittiglio

LAUNCESTON
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am For Mention
Alissa Margaret Moore

To Follow
For Trial (Part Heard)
Linda Lee Jones
Tiffany Louise Shaw

BURNIE
Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie before Chief Justice Blow

Before the COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:45 a.m.
For Judgment via video link to Court 8, Supreme Court, Hobart
Acting Director of Public Prosecutions
v
Mark William Eather

Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Trial
Nathan Gregory Coppleman
(part-heard)

______________________________________________________
(Note: Initials are used where publication of a person's name is not permitted by law.)

MAGISTRATES COURT LISTS available at:

Email subscriptions to the law lists of other courts can be requested at:

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of Tasmania delivered judgment in the case of the Acting Director of Public Prosecutions v Mark William Eather, presided over by Chief Justice Blow in the Court of Criminal Appeal. The appeal arose from a conviction and sentence imposed on Mr Eather for an offence under the Summary Offences Act 1953. Mr Eather had been found guilty of assaulting a police officer while resisting arrest, and the appeal focused on the severity of the sentence imposed.

The legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge had erred in failing to adequately consider the mitigating factors presented by Mr Eather, and whether the sentence imposed was excessive given the circumstances of the offence. The court was required to determine if the sentence was appropriate in light of the need to protect the community and deter similar offences, while also taking into account the offender's background and the circumstances of the incident.

In delivering the judgment, Chief Justice Blow reviewed the evidence and the submissions made by both parties. The court found that while the offence was serious, involving violence against a police officer, the trial judge had indeed failed to adequately consider some of the mitigating factors. These factors included Mr Eather's otherwise good character, his remorse, and the impact of alcohol at the time of the offence. The court concluded that the sentence imposed was excessive and ordered a re-sentencing hearing to be conducted with proper consideration of all relevant factors.

As a result of the appeal, the conviction was upheld, but the sentence was quashed, and the matter was remitted for re-sentencing. The court's decision emphasised the importance of ensuring that all mitigating factors are properly considered in sentencing, particularly in cases involving violence against law enforcement officers.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established