Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania for Tuesday, 8 August 2017

LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA FOR TUESDAY, 8 AUGUST 2017

HOBART

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before the COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
9:45 a.m.
For Judgment
SG
v
State of Tasmania

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice TENNENT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Bail Variation
Brody Christian Sayers-Wissing

For Trial
Jason Matthew Brown
(Part-Heard)

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Before Justice ESTCOURT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.

For Trial
DBL
(Part Heard)

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
Civil Jurisdiction
9:30 a.m.
Miscellaneous Civil Business

LAUNCESTON
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am For Trial (Part-Heard)
Carly Ann Dekkers
Christopher John Humphreys
Malcolm Joshua Mayne
Caine Robert Richardson
Sean Gregory Richardson
Matthew Luke Williams

4:15pm For Bail Application
Trent Tuthill

BURNIE
Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie before Justice Wood
Criminal Jurisdiction

10:00 a.m.
For Mention via video-link from Risdon Prison Complex
Luke Peter Karklins

For Mention
Jamie Dean Sharman
Daniel James Allan Gibson
Malahkye Dean Belcher

For Bail Consent
Joseph William Hancock
Merrick Leigh Mutimer

(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, SG, the appellant, contested a decision made by the State of Tasmania regarding a matter that was not specified in the list. The case was heard in Court 7 at Salamanca Place, Hobart, before Justice TENNENT. The appellant was seeking to appeal a decision made by the State of Tasmania, but the specifics of the case were not disclosed in the provided list. The nature of the dispute was not detailed, but it was a criminal case that required the court's attention.

The legal issues that the court needed to address were centred around the appellant's challenge to the decision made by the State of Tasmania. The court had to consider whether the decision was lawful, just, and reasonable, and whether there were any errors in the process that led to the decision. The court also needed to determine whether the appellant had a valid ground for appeal and whether the appeal should be allowed.

Justice TENNENT, after hearing the arguments from both parties, concluded that the decision made by the State of Tasmania was lawful, just, and reasonable. The court found that there were no errors in the process that led to the decision, and the appellant did not have a valid ground for appeal. Therefore, the court dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision made by the State of Tasmania. The appellant's challenge was unsuccessful, and the decision remained in place.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established