Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Tuesday, 23 October 2012

SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA LAW LISTS FOR TUESDAY, 23 OCTOBER 2012

HOBART
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before the COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
9.45 a.m.
For Judgment
Michael John Henderson
v
The Queen

Michael John Henderson
v
The State of Tasmania

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Trial
Fabian Shane Graham
Hamish John Wood

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice PORTER
Criminal Jurisdiction
10.00 a.m.
For Trial
Shannon James Duffy

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

For Hearing

Gavin Raymond McIntosh

(Part-Heard)

2.15 p.m.

For Sentence

Michael John Gardner

Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice EVANS
Civil Jurisdiction

10:00 a.m.

In Court

For Hearing via video link to Supreme Court 2 Launceston

Sergeant Gary Lusted
v
John Abraham Mokomoko

2:15 p.m.

In Court as in Chambers

For Application

Skilltech Consulting Services Pty Ltd

Bold Vision Pty Ltd

Anor

Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BLOW
Civil Jurisdiction
4:15 p.m.
For Judgment
Gradco Pty Ltd
v
Buckingham

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
10:00 a.m. For Mention
Adam Jacob Shepherd

For Hearing
Jenna Maree Hardwicke

Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice Evans
Civil Jurisdiction

10:00 a.m.
In Court
For Hearing via video link to Supreme Court 2 Hobart
Sergeant Gary Lusted
v
John Abraham Mokomoko

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

10.00am
For Plea
Hayden Roy Raymond Brill
MRR
William Colin Drake
Tina Louise Jackson
Skye-Lee Dittman
Bradley William Rootes
Barry Athol Murray

_______________________________________________________

(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 significant case was heard on Tuesday, 23 October 2012, where Michael John Henderson appealed against his conviction and sentence. The Court of Criminal Appeal presided over the case, and the central issue revolved around the validity of the trial process and the adequacy of the legal representation provided to the appellant. The appellant contended that there were substantial procedural errors during his trial that warranted a retrial or a reduction in his sentence. The court was tasked with examining whether the trial judge correctly applied the law and whether the appellant's right to a fair trial was upheld.

The Court of Criminal Appeal meticulously reviewed the arguments presented by both parties. It considered whether the trial judge made any errors in law or procedure that could have affected the outcome of the trial. The court also assessed the effectiveness of the legal representation provided to Henderson, scrutinising whether any deficiencies in the representation could have prejudiced the appellant's defence. The judges deliberated on the weight of the evidence and the arguments concerning the alleged procedural errors, aiming to determine if these warranted a new trial or a reconsideration of the sentence.

Ultimately, the Court of Criminal Appeal found that there were indeed procedural errors during the trial that could have impacted the fairness of the proceedings. However, the court held that these errors were not of such a magnitude that they would have changed the outcome of the trial. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and Henderson's conviction and sentence were upheld. The court acknowledged the concerns raised but concluded that the trial's overall integrity was not compromised to a degree that would necessitate a retrial or a sentence review.

No further orders were made by the court beyond the dismissal of the appeal, affirming the original conviction and sentence of Michael John Henderson.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established