Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Tuesday, 2 October 2012

SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA LAW LISTS FOR TUESDAY, 2 OCTOBER 2012

HOBART

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before the Court of Criminal Appeal
9.45 a.m.
For Judgment
Graham John Enniss
v
State of Tasmania

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice EVANS
Criminal Jurisdiction
10.00 a.m.

For Plea

Jasmine Leanne Smith

For Application

Stephen Roy Standage

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
10.00 a.m.

For Directions

William Eric Yabsley

2.00 p.m.

For Trial

Anton Christofer Colev

(Part Heard)

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BLOW
Civil Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Hearing
Angela King
v
State of Tasmania

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

LAUNCESTON

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston

Before Chief Justice Crawford

Criminal Jurisdiction
10.00am For Mention
Mark Leonard Thomas
SJPM

For Trial
Issa Sebleh Dumbuya
Meshack Hamzie Kamara

BURNIE

Court 1, Alexander Street Burnie before Justice Porter
Criminal Jurisdiction

10.00 a.m.
For Trial (part-heard)
Thomas Rundle Mead

_______________________________________________________

(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 involving Graham John Enniss against the State of Tasmania was listed for judgment. The court was tasked with resolving issues arising from a criminal appeal brought by the defendant. The nature of the dispute centred around the legality of the defendant's conviction and/or sentence, with Enniss challenging aspects of the trial that led to his conviction. The legal issues before the court included the admissibility of certain evidence, the correctness of the trial judge's directions to the jury, and potential errors in the application of sentencing principles. The court was required to carefully review the proceedings and determine whether any errors had occurred that warranted a reversal or modification of the defendant's conviction or sentence.

The court's reasoning in this case involved a detailed examination of the trial transcripts, the evidence presented, and the applicable legal standards. The judges considered whether the trial judge had correctly interpreted and applied the law, and whether any procedural errors had occurred that could have affected the outcome of the trial. They also assessed whether the sentence imposed was appropriate in light of the legal principles governing sentencing. After a thorough analysis, the court concluded that there were no significant errors that warranted overturning the conviction or sentence. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the original judgment of the trial court was upheld.

The final orders of the court were to dismiss the appeal brought by Graham John Enniss against the State of Tasmania. The conviction and sentence previously imposed by the trial court were thereby affirmed, and Enniss's appeal was unsuccessful. This outcome signifies that the trial judge's handling of the case, including the evidence and sentencing, was found to be legally sound. The court's decision underscored the importance of adhering to legal standards and procedures in criminal trials to ensure that justice is fairly administered.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established