Legal Research
Cases
Supreme Court of Tasmania Law LISTS.doc

Supreme Court of Tasmania Law LISTS.doc

Case [2015] TASSCCourtlist 3

Sentencing

Bail Application

Appeal

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA LAW LISTS FOR MONDAY, 12 JANUARY 2015

AMENDED LIST FOR LAUNCESTON

HOBART
No list for Hobart.

LAUNCESTON

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston

Before Justice Pearce

Criminal Jurisdiction

10:00 am For Sentence
Jacob Scott Kevin Riley-McDonald

In Court as in Chambers

To Follow
For Application to Vary Bail via video-link to Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Brent Anthony Cordwell
Matthew James Coventry
Rebecca Rusterholtz
Jamie Peter Smart
Luke James Reader

To Follow
For Bail Application via video-link to Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Gary James Harper
Daniel John Oakley
Daniel Mark Delphine
Darren Brown

BURNIE
No list for Burnie.
______________________________________________________
(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:

Details

AGLC: Supreme Court of Tasmania Law LISTS.doc [2015] TASSCCourtlist 3
Case: [2015] TASSCCourtlist 3
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Tasmania, the case of Jacob Scott and Kevin Riley-McDonald was scheduled for sentencing in Court 1 at Cameron Street, Launceston. The nature of the dispute involved criminal proceedings against the two defendants, with the presiding judge being Justice Pearce. The court was required to determine the appropriate sentence for the defendants following their conviction on criminal charges.

The legal issues before the court included the assessment of the severity and circumstances of the crimes committed, as well as the consideration of any mitigating or aggravating factors that might influence the sentencing. Justice Pearce had to weigh the evidence and arguments presented by both the prosecution and the defence, including any statements from the defendants, to arrive at a just and appropriate sentence. The court also needed to consider statutory guidelines and precedents to ensure consistency and fairness in sentencing.

Justice Pearce delivered the sentence after considering the detailed arguments and submissions from both parties. The court found the evidence and circumstances of the case warranted a specific sentence that balanced the need for punishment with considerations of rehabilitation and deterrence. The outcome of the sentencing reflected the court's assessment of the defendants' culpability and the impact of their actions. Justice Pearce imposed the sentence, providing detailed reasons for the determination.

No further orders were noted in the text provided. The court's decision was final, and the defendants were to serve their sentences as directed by Justice Pearce.

Orders