Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania for Friday, 20 October 2017 Summary

LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA FOR FRIDAY, 20 OCTOBER 2017

HOBART

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Mention
Lee Charles Cobern
Joshua Blair Read
Dillin Leigh Michael Schultz

For Directions Hearing
David John Eaton
Brett James Hannan

For Application
Peter John Geniola

For Facts and Sentence
Craig Andrew Rickards
Philip Thomas Burns
Sasha Djuro Botak
Mark Anthony Dillon

GHM

12:00 p.m.
For Bail Application
KKB

2:15 p.m.
For Sentence via video link to Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston
Michael James Beames

For Bail Application
Brendan Cranston

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
Civil Jurisdiction
9:15 a.m. via video link to Burnie
Miscellaneous Civil Business

2:15 p.m.
Set down for Hearing
Louise Mollross
v
John Eadie and anor

LAUNCESTON

Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston

Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction

2:15 p.m.

For Sentence via video link from Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Michael James Beames

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:
subscriptions to the law lists of other courts can be requested at:

The Supreme Court of Tasmania, presided over by Justice Brett, heard a variety of criminal cases on Friday, 20 October 2017. Among the cases mentioned, Lee Charles Cobern, Joshua Blair Read, and Dillin Leigh Michael Schultz were scheduled for mention, indicating a preliminary hearing or update on their respective cases. David John Eaton and Brett James Hannan had applications to be considered, potentially involving procedural or evidentiary matters. Peter John Geniola also had an application, the nature of which was not specified in the provided list. Craig Andrew Rickards, Philip Thomas Burns, Sasha Djuro Botak, and Mark Anthony Dillon were listed for facts and sentencing, suggesting that these cases were at a stage where evidence had been presented and legal arguments had been made, now awaiting the court's determination of the appropriate sentence.

The legal issues before the court likely encompassed a range of criminal matters, including the admissibility of evidence, the interpretation of criminal statutes, and the appropriate sentencing in light of the facts and circumstances of each case. For the mention hearings, the court would have been concerned with procedural aspects such as ensuring all parties were present and that the cases were progressing according to schedule. The applications likely involved specific legal questions that required the court's intervention, such as motions to suppress evidence, requests for specific procedural rulings, or challenges to the legality of the charges or proceedings. The facts and sentencing hearings would have required the court to weigh the evidence, consider legal principles related to criminal liability and punishment, and apply sentencing guidelines to arrive at an appropriate outcome.

Justice Brett, along with the other justices presiding over the various cases, would have applied relevant laws and legal precedents to address the specific issues raised in each case. The court's reasoning would have been guided by established legal principles, ensuring that the proceedings were fair and that the rights of the accused were protected. The outcome for each case would have been determined based on the evidence presented, the arguments made by the parties, and the applicable legal standards. The court would have aimed to deliver just and proportionate sentences, taking into account the nature and circumstances of the offences, as well as any mitigating or aggravating factors.

The final orders of the court would have been communicated to the parties involved, outlining the decisions made regarding the mention, applications, and sentences. These orders would have included any directions for further proceedings, rulings on applications, and the specific sentences imposed on the defendants. The court's decisions would have been communicated in writing, providing clarity and finality to the legal processes undertaken.

Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania for Friday, 20 October 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established