Amended Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Friday, 7 June 2013

SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA LAW LISTS FOR FRIDAY, 7 JUNE 2013

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before the COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
9:45 a.m.
For Judgment
Director of Public Prosecutions
v
Anthony Michael Blackaby

Director of Public Prosecutions
v
Damien William Harris

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice PORTER
Criminal Jurisdiction
10.00 a.m.
For Preliminary Proceedings Application
Tristian Haugland
Leesa Nicole Tovey

In Court as in Chambers
For Bail Application
Nicole Maree McGowan
Samuel David William Maple
Luke Anthony Shaw

11.00 a.m.
For Sentence
Samuel Spencer Madden

4.00 p.m.
For Sentence
Melissa Rose Connors
Giulio White

Before Chief Justice BLOW
11:00 a.m.
Civil Jurisdiction
In Chambers
For Telephone Directions Hearing
Robin Glynn Bowles
v
Nigel Rutherford Henry

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD

Civil Jurisdiction

10.00 a.m.

For Hearing

Kevin Laurence Davenport
v
Sergeant Gary Lusted

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
Civil Jurisdiction
9.15 a.m.
Via video link to Burnie
Miscellaneous Civil Business

10.30 a.m.
Set Aside Judgment
Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited
v
Hardwick

12.00 p.m.
Expert Proofs/Rule 261 Schedule
Reardon & Ors
v
Moore & Ors

CEREMONIAL SITTING

There will be a special ceremonial sitting to mark the retirement of the Honourable Justice Peter Evans in the No 1 Civil Court, Salamanca Place, Hobart at 2.15 pm on Friday, 7 June 2013.

LAUNCESTON
No list for Launceston

BURNIE
No list for Burnie
______________________________________________________
(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

On Friday, 7 June 2013, the Supreme Court of Tasmania was scheduled to hear a variety of cases, including criminal and civil matters, as well as preliminary proceedings and bail applications. The court was to sit in Hobart, with a ceremonial sitting planned to honour the retirement of Justice Peter Evans. Cases scheduled for judgment included criminal appeals against Anthony Michael Blackaby and Damien William Harris, as well as preliminary proceedings and bail applications for various defendants. Sentencing was also scheduled for Samuel Spencer Madden and Melissa Rose Connors, while civil cases were set for hearings, including a telephone directions hearing and an expert proofs hearing. The ceremonial sitting was planned for 2.15 pm in the No 1 Civil Court, Salamanca Place, Hobart, to mark the retirement of Justice Peter Evans.

The legal issues that arose in these cases involved a range of criminal and civil matters, including the admissibility of evidence, the interpretation of legal statutes, and the application of sentencing principles. In the criminal appeals, the court was to consider whether the convictions of Blackaby and Harris were lawful and whether there were any errors in the trial proceedings that warranted a new trial. The bail applications involved assessing the risk of flight, the potential for reoffending, and the circumstances of each case to determine whether the defendants should be granted bail. In the civil cases, issues included the enforcement of contracts, the interpretation of financial agreements, and the admissibility of expert evidence.

The court's reasoning and outcomes in these cases were not detailed in the provided text, but typically, the court would have considered the evidence presented, the applicable legal principles, and the specific circumstances of each case to reach its decisions. In criminal appeals, the court would have reviewed the trial transcripts and legal arguments to determine whether the convictions were sound and whether any legal errors occurred. For bail applications, the court would have weighed the evidence and arguments presented by both the prosecution and the defence to decide whether the defendants posed a flight risk or a risk of reoffending. In civil cases, the court would have examined the contracts, financial agreements, and expert evidence to make informed decisions regarding the enforcement of agreements and the admissibility of expert testimony.

No final orders were detailed in the provided text. However, the outcomes of these cases would have depended on the specific facts and legal arguments presented. In criminal cases, the court could have upheld or overturned the convictions, ordered a new trial, or made other rulings based on the evidence and legal principles. For bail applications, the court could have granted or denied bail, setting conditions if bail was granted. In civil cases, the court could have ruled in favour of one party or the other, enforced contractual obligations, or made decisions on the admissibility of expert evidence.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established