LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA FRIDAY, 28 OCTOBER 2016
AMENDED LIST FOR HOBART
HOBART
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before the Criminal Court of Appeal
9:45 a.m.
For Directions Hearing
LBS
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Civil Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Judgment
Adam Stanwix
v
Police Review Board
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:15 a.m.
For Bail Application
Bradley Leahy
Mark Sherman
Justin Paul Moore
LAUNCESTON
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice TENNENT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am For Mention via Video-Link
James Stanley Morcom
To Follow
For Preliminary Proceedings Application via Video-Link
Brodie Edmond Fazackerley
Benjamin John Griffiths
To Follow
For Mention
Joshua John Atkinson
Matthew John Cameron
Stacey Dawn Lambert
Justin Lee Clark
TJC
Jack Dale
AOH
Aaron Edwin Gray
Rebecca Ann Sampson
KLN
Marcus Arthur Olden
To Follow
For Discharge
Cassidy Rose Woodward
To Follow
For Sentencing Submissions
NRF
Craig Anthony John King
Luke Albert McDonald
To Follow
For Plea
Shae Lee Parker
To Follow
For Preliminary Proceedings Application
Eden James Burns
To Follow
For Bail Variation
Damian Mark Stebbings
To Follow
For Application to Review an Order Suspending Sentence
Mark Andrew Jenkins
Bryce Anderson Woodward
Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
2:15pm For Further Sentencing Submissions
Norman Brodhurst Vaughan
BURNIE
Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie before Justice Brett
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Facts and Plea in Mitigation
Graham John Enniss
11:30 a.m.
For Bail Application by Video Link
Daniel Lee Upton
(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:
- AGLC
- Amended Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Friday, 28 October 2016 [2016] TASSCCourtlist 234
- Case
- [2016] TASSCCourtlist 234
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was tasked with determining whether the Police Review Board acted within its jurisdiction and adhered to proper procedures when addressing Mr Stanwix's complaint. Additionally, the court needed to assess if the Board's actions resulted in a breach of Mr Stanwix's legal rights and if the Board's decisions were reasonable and justified under the circumstances.
Chief Justice BLOW delivered the judgment, outlining that the Police Review Board had indeed failed to properly consider Mr Stanwix's complaint and did not follow the required procedures. The court found that these procedural errors led to a significant miscarriage of justice. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of Mr Stanwix, acknowledging the Board's shortcomings and the impact of these failures on his legal rights. The final orders of the court included a declaration that the Police Review Board's handling of Mr Stanwix's complaint was unlawful and required rectification to ensure compliance with procedural fairness and legal standards.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.