Amended Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Tuesday 8 May 2012

AMENDED SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA LAW LISTS FOR TUESDAY 8 MAY 2012

HOBART LIST

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice CRAWFORD
Criminal Jurisdiction
10.00 a.m.
In Court as in Chambers

For Bail Application
Shannon James Duffy

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before the FULL COURT
10.00 a.m.
For Hearing
Joshua Andrew Potts
v
Darren Stephen Ian Frost
(Part heard)

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice PORTER
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:00 p.m.
For Sentence
ABB

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Civil Jurisdiction
10.00 a.m.
For Further Submissions
Ronald Krulow and Sarah Krulow
v
Glamorgan Spring Bay Council

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
Civil Jurisdiction
9.30 a.m.
Miscellaneous Civil Business

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

In the amended Supreme Court of Tasmania law lists for Tuesday, 8 May 2012, there were several cases scheduled for various hearings. The first case listed in the criminal jurisdiction was a bail application for Shannon James Duffy. Another criminal case, involving Joshua Andrew Potts versus Darren Stephen Ian Frost, was also scheduled for a part hearing in Court 1 at Salamanca Place, Hobart. A sentencing hearing for a case identified by the initials "ABB" was listed for Court 8 at the same location, presided over by Justice Wood. In the civil jurisdiction, there were further submissions in the case of Ronald Krulow and Sarah Krulow versus Glamorgan Spring Bay Council, to be heard in Court 3. Additionally, miscellaneous civil business was scheduled for the same court.

The legal issues that the court needed to decide in these cases varied depending on the nature of each proceeding. For the bail application, the court would have to consider whether the applicant met the criteria for bail under the relevant legislation. In the Potts versus Frost case, the court would likely be addressing the merits of the charges and the evidence presented. For the sentencing hearing, the court would consider appropriate penalties and sentences based on the facts and legal principles. The further submissions in the Krulow case would involve the interpretation of civil law and the application of legal principles to the facts of the case.

The court's reasoning and outcome would be detailed in the judgments or orders issued for each case. The bail application would be decided based on the assessment of the risk of the applicant failing to appear in court, the risk of reoffending, and any other relevant factors. The Potts versus Frost case would be determined based on the evidence and arguments presented by both parties, with the court applying relevant criminal law principles. The sentencing hearing would involve a consideration of the principles of sentencing, the nature and circumstances of the offence, and any mitigating or aggravating factors. The Krulow case's further submissions would involve the application of civil law to the specific facts of the dispute. The final orders would reflect the court's decisions in each case, which may include granting or denying bail, determining the outcome of the charges, imposing sentences, or providing further directions in the civil proceedings.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established