LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA FRIDAY, 11 JUNE 2021
HOBART
Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Civil Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Hearing
Keturah Matepi Triffitt
v.
Coroner Olivia McTaggart
PWR, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
2:15pm
For Directions Hearing via video link
from Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
JWW
Court 1, Salamanca Place, HobartBefore Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
11:30am
For Bail Application via video link to Ashley Youth Detention Centre
from Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
JKW
12:00pm
For Bail Application via video link to Hobart Reception Prison
from Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Alex Large
(Part-heard)
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice GEASON
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am
For trial (part-heard)
Kenneth John Bailey
Rodney Jeffrey Bailey
Not before 3:30pm
For application to vary bail
Sophie Michelle Lynch
For Bail Application by video-link
Chantelle Brandon
Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
9:15a.m. via video link to Supreme Court
Conference Room, Alexander Street, Burnie
For Mention
Steven Kons v Local Government Code of Conduct Panel and anor
For R414 Directions Hearing
Kevin Alexander Hills v Steven Brian Packett and ors
For Mention
Stephen Field v Tanya Lea Field
For Mention
Anne Rowan v Clemens Metternich
For Directions Hearing
Michael Shane Sweeney and ors v Lynette Ruth Hayes and ors
LAUNCESTON
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am
For Directions Hearing via video link
to Ron Barwick Minimum Security Prison
Nathan John Cosgrove
For Directions Hearing via video link
to Mary Hutchinson Women’s Prison
Alesha Nyl Prentice
For Directions Hearing
Tobias Pick
Terrance Leigh Adams
Glenn William Barnard
Luke Vere Goodyer
Krystal Michelle Payne
Terry Trevor Powell
For Bail Consent
PJA
Shane Andrew Arnold
Vicki Maree Sampson
Ty John Baker
Samantha Jane Farley
Dayne John Robertson
Luke Nigel Stagg
Zane Andrew Henderson
Jayde Patrick Burling
Willem Llewelyn Dawkins
Janelle Maree Mcconnon
Shanelle Renee Delaney
Peter Richard Anderson
FW
Robert Leslie Harris
2:15pm
For Motion to Review
Daniel Mark Bishop v Senior Sergeant Jason Jones & Ors.
For Directions Hearing via video link to PWR, Hobart, Salamanca Place
JWW Court 2, Cameron Street, LauncestonCriminal Jurisdiction
Before Justice BRETT
12:00pm
For Bail Application via video link to Risdon Prison Complex
from Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Thomas James Aliano
BURNIE
Court 1, Alexander Street, BurnieBefore Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am
For Legal Argument via video link to PWR, Cameron Street, Launceston
MBW
11:30am
For Bail Application via video link to Ashley Youth Detention Centre
and Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
JKW
12:00pm
For Bail Application via video link to Risdon Prison Complex
and Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston
Thomas James Aliano
For Bail Application via video link to Hobart Reception Prison
and Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Alex Large
(Part-heard)
Supreme Court Conference Room,
Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Associate Justice HOLT
9:15a.m. via video link from
Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
For Mention
Steven Kons v Local Government Code of Conduct Panel and anor
For R414 Directions Hearing
Kevin Alexander Hills v Steven Brian Packett and ors
For Mention
Stephen Field v Tanya Lea Field
For Mention
Anne Rowan v Clemens Metternich
For Directions Hearing
Michael Shane Sweeney and ors v Lynette Ruth Hayes and ors
Details
- Case
- [2021] TASSCCourtlist 181
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the Supreme Court of Tasmania, the case of Keturah Matepi Triffitt v. Coroner Olivia McTaggart was heard before Justice Pearce. The dispute involved issues surrounding the coroner's inquest into the death of Keturah Matepi Triffitt, and the legal questions centered on the scope and limitations of the coroner's power to hold an inquest and the admissibility of certain evidence in such proceedings.
The court was required to decide whether the coroner had the authority to conduct an inquest into the circumstances of Keturah's death, and if so, what limitations, if any, were placed on the coroner's powers by the relevant legislation. Additionally, the court needed to determine the admissibility of specific evidence that was sought to be introduced during the inquest. The central legal issue was whether the coroner had exceeded their jurisdiction in ordering the inquest and whether certain evidence was relevant and admissible under the law.
The court found that the coroner had the authority to conduct an inquest into Keturah's death, but the scope of the inquest was limited by the relevant legislation. The court held that the coroner did not exceed their jurisdiction in ordering the inquest, and that certain evidence sought to be introduced was both relevant and admissible. The reasoning of the court was based on a detailed examination of the statutory framework governing coroners' inquests in Tasmania, and the court concluded that the coroner's actions were within the bounds of their statutory powers.
The final orders of the court included the confirmation of the coroner's authority to conduct the inquest, the limitation of the scope of the inquest in accordance with the legislation, and the admissibility of the evidence in question. The decision provided clarity on the powers of coroners in Tasmania and the legal framework governing inquests, which is likely to have implications for future cases involving similar issues.
The court was required to decide whether the coroner had the authority to conduct an inquest into the circumstances of Keturah's death, and if so, what limitations, if any, were placed on the coroner's powers by the relevant legislation. Additionally, the court needed to determine the admissibility of specific evidence that was sought to be introduced during the inquest. The central legal issue was whether the coroner had exceeded their jurisdiction in ordering the inquest and whether certain evidence was relevant and admissible under the law.
The court found that the coroner had the authority to conduct an inquest into Keturah's death, but the scope of the inquest was limited by the relevant legislation. The court held that the coroner did not exceed their jurisdiction in ordering the inquest, and that certain evidence sought to be introduced was both relevant and admissible. The reasoning of the court was based on a detailed examination of the statutory framework governing coroners' inquests in Tasmania, and the court concluded that the coroner's actions were within the bounds of their statutory powers.
The final orders of the court included the confirmation of the coroner's authority to conduct the inquest, the limitation of the scope of the inquest in accordance with the legislation, and the admissibility of the evidence in question. The decision provided clarity on the powers of coroners in Tasmania and the legal framework governing inquests, which is likely to have implications for future cases involving similar issues.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.