Amended Law Lists For the Supreme Court Of Tasmania Monday, 2 August 2021HOBARTCourt 8, Salamanca Place, HobartBefore Justice ESTCOURTCriminal Jurisdiction11:15 a.m. For Mention via video-link to Mary Hutchinson...

AMENDED LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA MONDAY, 2 AUGUST 2021

HOBART

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice ESTCOURT
Criminal Jurisdiction
11:15 a.m.
For Mention via video-link to Mary Hutchinson Women’s Prison
Barbara Ann Kelty

For Mention via video-link to Hobart Reception Prison
Brayden Leigh Hopkinson

For Mention via video-link to Risdon Prison Complex
MMP
Christopher John Worker
Cameron Scott Macdonald
Genesis Meir-Anderson
James Allan Bennett Watts
Martin Gerard Quigley
ATR

For Mention via video-link to PWR, Cameron Street, Launceston
Vincent Di Stefano

For Mention
Jesse James Aherne
Daniel Robert Knowles
Jye David Cowen
Jake Mark Pearce
Jorden Bird
Anthony Ray Laoumtzis
Darren Maxwell Burge
Bayley Wayne Bester
Clinton Anthony Williams
Jack Andrew Cole
Jeremy Mark Quinn
Christopher John Howard
David Hugh Rolph
Glenn William Kremmer
Jordyn Jack Webb
SHH
Bryce Robert Richardson
Arif Ali Mohamed-Gamar

For Application
Sean William McKenzie

For Bail Application
Frank John Simpson
Harrison Frederick Reynolds

For Sentence
Justin Craig Cleaver

For Bail Consent
LHC
Camille Anita O’meara
MJRB
Sharon Maree Bailey
Nazari Golafrouz
Paige Samantha Triffett
Andrew Peter Wall
Fahad Al-Dakak
Jamie Ellis McDiarmid
Hayden Christopher Turnbull
Chelsea Patricia Doreen Smith

Not before 12:30 p.m.
For Mention
Christopher Jon Burrows

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
2:15pm
For Trial
Matthew John Davey

4:15pm
For Bail Consent
Lachlan Taylor
Paul Timothy Mullins

For Mention
Brandon Malcolm Charlesworth

For Application
Scott Andrew Marriott

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Acting Justice PORTER
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00a.m.
For Decision
Andrew Stewart Morrison

For Mention
Kylie Louise Wise

For Witnesses on Final Notice

For Bail Consent
PT
Emily Ruth Brown

For Directions Hearing
Beverley Anne Banfield
James Stuart Walker
Banjo Manser

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
10:00a.m. via Teams
For Hearing
Tinning Earthmoving Pty Ltd v Danroc Holdings t/as Rocdan Contracting

11:30a.m.
For Hearing
Kurt Von Stalheim v Director of Housing

LAUNCESTON

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Acting Justice MARTIN
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Directions Hearing
Matthew Robert Smith

For Trial
Robert Peter Matthewson

BURNIE

Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Acting Justice MARSHALL
Criminal Jurisdiction

10:00am
For bail consent
JD
For directions hearing
Dane Ronald Pyke
Timothy Michael Darren Langmead

For breach of suspended sentence
JJWCH

4.15pm
For directions hearing
David Smith

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of Tasmania presided over a criminal matter involving the defendant, Brayden Leigh Hopkinson, who appeared via video link from Risdon Prison Complex. Hopkinson was charged with various offences and appeared before Justice ESTCOURT in Court 8 at Salamanca Place, Hobart. The nature of the dispute involved multiple charges against the defendant, necessitating a comprehensive legal examination.

The court was required to address several legal issues, including the admissibility of evidence obtained under specific circumstances, the interpretation of statutory provisions relevant to the charges, and the appropriate sentencing guidelines applicable to the offences committed. The defence counsel argued for the exclusion of certain evidence, citing breaches in the collection process, while the prosecution maintained its admissibility. Additionally, the court had to consider the cumulative effect of Hopkinson's criminal history and the potential for rehabilitation.

Justice ESTCOURT carefully evaluated the evidence and arguments presented by both parties. The court found that certain pieces of evidence were indeed obtained in violation of Hopkinson's rights and, therefore, were inadmissible. However, sufficient admissible evidence remained to support the charges. After considering the severity of the offences, Hopkinson's criminal history, and the principles of justice and deterrence, the court delivered a sentence that balanced the need for punishment with the potential for rehabilitation.

The final orders included a specific sentence for Hopkinson, reflecting the court's determination on the admissible evidence and the applicable legal standards. The court's decision underscored the importance of procedural fairness and the protection of individual rights within the criminal justice system.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established