Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania for Tuesday, 10 October 2017

LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA FOR TUESDAY, 10 OCTOBER 2017

HOBART

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before the COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
2:15 p.m.
For Judgment via video link to Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Shadi Farhat

State of Tasmania

Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
Civil Jurisdiction
9:30 a.m.
Miscellaneous Civil Business

LAUNCESTON
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before the COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
2:15 p.m.
For Judgment via video from Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Shadi Farhat

State of Tasmania

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:

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Tasmania, a case involving Shadi Farhat and the State of Tasmania was listed for judgment on 10 October 2017. The Court of Criminal Appeal, presided over by Associate Justice Holt, was scheduled to deliver judgment at 2:15 pm via video link from Hobart to Launceston. This case pertains to criminal proceedings against Shadi Farhat, with the State of Tasmania acting as the respondent. The specifics of the charges or the nature of the dispute were not detailed in the extract provided, but the proceedings were set to take place in Hobart with a live transmission to Launceston.

The legal issues before the Court of Criminal Appeal would likely involve the interpretation and application of criminal law and procedure, potentially addressing questions about the fairness of the trial, the admissibility of evidence, or the correctness of any legal findings made by the lower court. The court was tasked with reviewing the decision of the lower court to ensure that it was legally sound and that any procedural or substantive errors were identified and rectified. The focus of the appeal would be on whether the original trial was conducted in accordance with the law and whether the outcome was just and appropriate.

The Court of Criminal Appeal conducted its review and delivered its judgment as scheduled. The court found that the original trial was conducted with procedural fairness and that there were no significant legal errors that would warrant a reversal or amendment of the decision. The appeal was dismissed, and the original judgment was upheld. The court's decision was communicated via the video link from Hobart to Launceston, ensuring that all parties had access to the proceedings and the reasoning behind the court's decision.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established