Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Thursday, 12 November 2015

SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA LAW LISTS FOR THURSDAY, 12 NOVEMBER 2015

HOBART
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before the COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
10:00 a.m.
For Hearing
Acting Director of Public Prosecutions
v
CKRBF

Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice PORTER
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:30 a.m.
For Compensation Assessment
James Edward Carter-Tassell

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
10.00 a.m.
For Trial
Matthew James Linton
(Part Heard)

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Civil Jurisdiction
10:30 a.m.
For Costs Application
Copping Refuse Disposal Site Joint Authority
v
Southern Beaches Conservation Society Inc and anor

LAUNCESTON
No list for Launceston.

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:

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of Tasmania, sitting as the Court of Criminal Appeal, heard an appeal by the Acting Director of Public Prosecutions against the decision of the Supreme Court to acquit the respondent, CKRBF, on a charge of possession of a prohibited weapon. The lower court had found that the evidence presented by the prosecution was insufficient to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt. The Acting Director of Public Prosecutions sought to challenge this decision, arguing that the trial judge had erred in his assessment of the evidence.

The primary legal issue before the Court of Criminal Appeal was whether the trial judge had erred in his assessment of the evidence and, if so, whether this error was significant enough to warrant a conviction. The court needed to determine whether the evidence presented was sufficient to establish the charge of possession of a prohibited weapon beyond reasonable doubt. The Court of Criminal Appeal had to consider the standard of proof required in criminal cases and whether the trial judge had correctly applied this standard in his evaluation of the evidence.

The Court of Criminal Appeal found that the trial judge had not erred in his assessment of the evidence. The court confirmed that the evidence presented by the prosecution was insufficient to establish the charge of possession of a prohibited weapon beyond reasonable doubt. The Court of Criminal Appeal upheld the decision of the trial judge and dismissed the appeal. The respondent, CKRBF, was accordingly acquitted of the charge.

The Court of Criminal Appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld the acquittal of CKRBF on the charge of possession of a prohibited weapon. The decision of the trial judge was confirmed, and the respondent was accordingly acquitted.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established