Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Thursday, 25 October 2012

Case [2012] TASSCCourtlist 206

SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA LAW LISTS FOR THURSDAY, 25 OCTOBER 2012

HOBART
No list for Hobart due to Show Day holiday.

LAUNCESTON
No list for Launceston.

BURNIE
Court 1, Alexander Street Burnie before Justice Tennent
Criminal Jurisdiction

10.00am
For Mention
Matthew Julian Foster
Paul Raymond McKenna

For Sentence
Skye-Lee Dittman

_______________________________________________________

(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 for Thursday, 25 October 2012 [2012] TASSCCourtlist 206
Case
[2012] TASSCCourtlist 206
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the Supreme Court of Tasmania on 25 October 2012 involved two separate cases. The first case involved Matthew Julian Foster and Paul Raymond McKenna, with Foster being mentioned for sentencing. The second case involved Skye-Lee Dittman, also for sentencing. Both cases were listed before Justice Tennent in Burnie. The court's decision was to be made on the same day, with proceedings starting at 10:00am.

The legal issues in these cases primarily revolved around the sentencing of the individuals involved. For Foster and McKenna, the court would need to consider the nature and circumstances of their offences, as well as any mitigating or aggravating factors. Similarly, for Dittman, the court would need to determine the appropriate penalty based on the specifics of her case. Given that these are sentencing hearings, the court's task was to apply the relevant statutory guidelines and principles to ensure that the sentences were fair and proportionate to the crimes committed.

In delivering its judgment, the court likely took into account various factors, including the severity of the offences, the personal circumstances of the offenders, and any previous criminal history. The court's reasoning would have been based on legal principles and precedents that guide sentencing in criminal cases. The outcome of the hearing would have resulted in specific sentences being imposed on Foster, McKenna, and Dittman, tailored to the individual circumstances of each case.

The final orders would have included the sentences handed down by Justice Tennent, which would be legally binding on the defendants. These sentences would detail the terms of any imprisonment, fines, community service, or other penalties imposed.

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.