Cases LegislationBeta Notebook Research Briefs

Hildebrand v Woodbridge [2021] ACTSC 327 — Appeal & Subpoenas — Barrister AI

Hildebrand v Woodbridge

[2021] ACTSC 327

Supreme Court of the ACT14 December 2021

More

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › APPEAL
3. › Appeal from ACT Magistrates Court
4. › appeal against sentence
5. › appeal by way of rehearing
6. › assault occasioning actual bodily harm
7. › sentence imposed not manifestly excessive
8. › magistrate did not err in failing to make an intensive correction order
9. › magistrate did not place undue reliance on victim impact statements
10. › appeal dismissed
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › SUBPOENAS
3. › Subpoena issued for purpose of appeal
4. › where appellant sought to admit further evidence based on documents obtained by subpoena
5. › no reasonable explanation for failure to adduce evidence before the magistrate
6. › undesirability of parties failing to adduce all relevant evidence at first instance
7. › further evidence not admitted

Case Details

Citation[2021] ACTSC 327

CourtACTSC

JurisdictionAustralian Capital Territory

Decision Date14 December 2021

Unlock so much more with Barrister AI

The full text is available to signed-in members.

Relies on8

2021Dang v LiACTSC 179
2020Tracey v The QueenACTCA 51
2020Murray v IAACTSC 288
2016Samani v The QueenACTCA 48
and 4 more after sign-in

Create free account

Already have an account? Sign in

See how it works