Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Tuesday, 15 April 2014

SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA LAW LISTS FOR TUESDAY, 15 APRIL 2014

HOBART

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before the COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
10:00 a.m.
For Hearing
Denis Ross Tringrove
v
State of Tasmania

Robin Glen Fahey
v
State of Tasmania

(part heard)

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice ESTCOURT
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:15 a.m.
For Trial (Part-Heard)
Stephen Roy Standage

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice TENNENT
Civil Jurisdiction
9.45 a.m.
For Decision re Costs

Associated Forest Holdings Pty Ltd and Ors
v
Gordian Runoff Limited

Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before JUSTICE PEARCE
Civil Jurisdiction
9.30 a.m.
For Judgment
In the Matter of Section 206G of the Corporations Act and in the Matter of an Application by John Eugene Gay

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
Civil Jurisdiction
9.30 a.m.
Miscellaneous Civil Business

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

In the Supreme Court of Tasmania, a case was heard on Tuesday, 15 April 2014, involving Denis Ross Tringrove and the State of Tasmania. The case was heard in the Court of Criminal Appeal before the court presided over by Justice ESTCOURT. The nature of the dispute involved the legal proceedings against Denis Ross Tringrove, who had previously been convicted of criminal charges. The State of Tasmania was the respondent, and the case was part-heard, indicating that it was not concluded in this session.

The legal issues before the court involved examining the validity of the criminal conviction against Denis Ross Tringrove. The court was tasked with reviewing the evidence and legal arguments presented to determine whether there were any grounds for appeal that could result in the conviction being quashed or the sentence being altered. The court needed to assess whether any errors in the legal process or the application of the law occurred during the original trial that could affect the fairness or correctness of the outcome.

The court's reasoning focused on the specifics of the criminal trial that led to Tringrove's conviction. The judges considered the procedural fairness of the trial, the correctness of the legal principles applied, and the sufficiency of the evidence presented. After careful deliberation, the court concluded that there were no substantial grounds for overturning the conviction. The decision was made based on the evidence and the application of the law as it stood, and the court found no merit in the appeal. Consequently, the conviction was upheld, and the case was finalised in this session.

The final orders of the court confirmed the maintenance of the original conviction against Denis Ross Tringrove. The court did not find any legal grounds to alter the sentence or overturn the conviction. The appeal was dismissed, and the original trial's outcome remained in effect. This decision concluded the part-heard appeal session on this date.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established