Amended Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania, Friday, 23 March 2018 Summary

AMENDED LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA, FRIDAY, 23 MARCH 2018

HOBART

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:30 a.m.
For Trial
Matthew John Davey
Dillon Anthony Davey
Scott Raymond Dale
(Part Heard)

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:30 a.m.
For Trial
ES
(Part-Heard)

10:00 a.m.
For Bail Consent
Scott Andrew Cripps

For Trial
DFP
(Part-Heard)

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Acting Justice SLICER
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15 p.m.
For Sentence
S

Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Acting Justice Marshall
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Directions Hearing via Video-Link
to Risdon Prison Complex
James Stephen William Russon
Nicholas Aaron Scott
Zachary Saul Syme
Shane Phillip West

For Mention via Video-Link
to Mary Hutchins Women’s Prison
Barbara Ann Kelty

For Directions Hearing
Christopher Richard Stevenson
Dallas John Eaves
Kaiden Adam Croft
Jye David Cowen
Zeb Haas

For Mention
Jennifer Anne Hindle
Mitchell John Campbell
Desiree Josephine Hunt
Luke Arthur Waddell-Smith
Justin Richard Maynard
Dwight Stanley Murtagh

For Bail Variation Application
Daniel John Oakley

For Preliminary Proceedings Application
Cameron James Riley

For Plea
Jesse Leigh Fletcher-Jones
Brodie Norman Barwick

For Facts and Sentence
Stephen John Gleeson

For Bail Application
Samuel Kenneth Joe Morley
Bradley Abel

Not Before 11:00am
For Bail Application
Tim Pithouse

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice GEASON
Civil Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Trial
Brocklands Pty Ltd
v
Tasmanian Networks Pty Ltd
(Part-Heard)

Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15 p.m.
For Bail Application

Kyam Keith Broadby

AMENDED LAUNCESTON

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am For Mention
Cody James Lee
Troy Anton Lovell

To Follow
For Bail Application (Part Heard)
James Sean Smithe

To Follow
For Plea
Christopher Ernest Denman

2:00pm For Bail Variation
Stephen Williams

3:00pm For Directions Hearing
Troy Anton Lovell

BURNIE

Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Justice BRETT

Criminal Jurisdiction

10:00 a.m.
For Mention
Brody Mykel Maisey

For Trial

Nathan Gregory Coppleman

(Note: Initials are used where publication of a person's name is not permitted by law.)

MAGISTRATES COURT LISTS available at:
subscriptions to the law lists of other courts can be requested at:

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Tasmania, several cases were scheduled to be heard on 23 March 2018. The criminal cases were presided over by Chief Justice Blow, Justice Wood, and Acting Justice Slicer, while a civil case was under the jurisdiction of Justice Geason. The cases ranged from trials to bail applications and directions hearings. Notably, the criminal cases included individuals such as Matthew John Davey, Dillon Anthony Davey, Scott Raymond Dale, and Scott Andrew Cripps. The civil case involved Brocklands Pty Ltd versus Tasmanian Networks Pty Ltd.

The legal issues that the court needed to address encompassed a broad spectrum, including the determination of guilt or innocence in criminal trials, the assessment of bail applications, and the direction of proceedings in ongoing cases. For the civil case, the court needed to resolve the dispute between Brocklands Pty Ltd and Tasmanian Networks Pty Ltd. The court's role was to interpret the relevant laws, consider the evidence presented, and make decisions based on legal principles and precedents.

The court's reasoning and outcome were not detailed in the document, as it primarily listed the cases to be heard. However, the court would have applied statutory and common law to reach its decisions. For instance, in criminal cases, the court would have considered whether the prosecution had met the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt. In bail applications, the court would have assessed the risk of flight, the risk to the community, and other relevant factors. In the civil case, the court would have examined the contractual obligations and any breaches that might have occurred.

No final orders were detailed in the document. The outcomes of the hearings would have been recorded in subsequent legal documents or court transcripts, which would detail the specific rulings and reasons for those decisions.

Amended Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania, Friday, 23 March 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established