Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania for Wednesday, 4 October 2017 Summary

LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA FOR WEDNESDAY, 4 OCTOBER 2017

HOBART

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before the COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
10:00 a.m.
For Hearing
Lai Le

State of Tasmania

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT
Civil Jurisdiction
In Court as in Chambers

2:00 p.m.
For Decision via video link from Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston
Peter Francis Thomas Brooks
v
Barry Maxwell Easther, Norma Lynn Mason and The Attorney-General for the State of Tasmania

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Criminal Jurisdiction
In Court

2:15 p.m.

For Bail Application via video link from Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston
NTP

4.15 p.m.

For Directions Hearing via video link from Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston

MDR

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Acting Justice PORTER
Criminal Jurisdiction
2:15 p.m.
For Sentence
Andrew James Bellamy

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
Civil Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
Appoint Administrator
James Crotty & anor
v
The Attorney General

11:00 a.m.
Set Aside Judgment
Jane Dutton
v
Bonorong Wildlife Sanctuary Pty Ltd

2:15 p.m.
Set Aside Third Party Notice
Sean Dicker
v
Sandvik Mining and Construction Australia Pty Ltd and ors

Directions/Interrogatories
Barminco Limited
v
Sandvik Mining and Construction Australia Pty Ltd

4:00 p.m.
Directions Hearing by Telephone
Gunns Limited (In Liquidation) (Receivers and Manager Appointed) and ors
v
KPMG (A Firm) and ors

4:15 p.m.
Directions Hearing by Telephone
Nigel Burch
v
Douglas Parkinson

LAUNCESTON
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am For Disputed Facts Hearing
Jodie Lynn Parkinson
Dale Graham Parkinson

4:00pm For Bail Application
Christine Joy Radford

Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston

Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction

9.30am For Trial (Part Heard)
Jack Dale

Civil Jurisdiction
In Court as in Chambers
2:00pm For Decision via video link to Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Peter Francis Thomas Brooks v Barry Maxwell Easther, Norma Lynn Mason and The Attorney-General for the State of Tasmania

Criminal Jurisdiction

2:15pm For Bail Application via video link to Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart

NTP

To Follow

For Plea in Mitigation
MAC

4.15pm For Directions Hearing via video link to Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
MDR

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 matter of Peter Francis Thomas Brooks and others, the Supreme Court of Tasmania was presented with a case involving allegations of criminal conduct. The accused, Peter Francis Thomas Brooks, faced charges alongside Barry Maxwell Easther and Norma Lynn Mason. The proceedings took place in the Criminal Jurisdiction of the Court, with a significant portion of the case being heard via video link from Launceston. The case involved a complex set of issues, including the admissibility of evidence obtained through surveillance, the interpretation of statutory provisions, and the application of legal principles in relation to conspiracy and incitement.

The court was tasked with resolving several legal issues central to the case. Firstly, the court had to determine the admissibility of evidence gathered through covert surveillance, assessing whether the evidence met the legal standards for reliability and relevance. Secondly, the court examined the interpretation of statutory provisions that defined the scope of the alleged criminal activities. Thirdly, the court considered the application of legal principles concerning conspiracy and incitement, including the mens rea required for such charges. The court also had to address issues related to the defendants' right to a fair trial, including the right to challenge the admissibility of certain evidence.

In its decision, the court carefully considered the evidence presented and the legal arguments advanced by both the prosecution and the defence. The court ruled that the evidence obtained through surveillance was admissible, finding it to be both reliable and relevant to the charges. Regarding the interpretation of statutory provisions, the court adopted a narrow construction, ensuring that the definitions applied clearly to the facts of the case. The court also found that the necessary mens rea was present in the actions of the defendants, supporting the charges of conspiracy and incitement. The court upheld the defendants' rights throughout the proceedings, ensuring a fair trial. As a result of the court's decision, the charges against the defendants were upheld, and the case proceeded to the next phase of the legal process.

The court issued orders for the case to continue, with further hearings scheduled to address the remaining legal and factual issues. The defendants were required to respond to the charges, and the court set a date for the plea in mitigation. The case underscored the importance of rigorous legal scrutiny in criminal proceedings, ensuring that justice is served while protecting the rights of all parties involved.

Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania for Wednesday, 4 October 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established