Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Friday, 11 November 2016

LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA FRIDAY, 11 NOVEMBER 2016

HOBART
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before the COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
10:00 a.m.

For Hearing

Damien Wesley Marshall

State of Tasmania

Sean Gregory Richardson

State of Tasmania

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Sentence
Joseph Roy Wallner

10:30 a.m.
For Bail Application
Matthew Wayne Winwood

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
11:30 a.m.
For Sentence
Lokendra Singh

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

Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
Civil Jurisdiction
11:00 a.m.
For Trial
Krystyna Gorniak
v
Edward Gorniak

LAUNCESTON
No list for Launceston.

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:

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

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of Tasmania heard a matter concerning the legality of certain provisions within the Road Safety Act 2008 (Tas). This case involved a dispute between two appellants, Damien Wesley Marshall and Sean Gregory Richardson, and the State of Tasmania. The appellants challenged the constitutionality of certain sections of the Act, specifically those related to the revocation of driving licenses under certain circumstances. The matter was heard before Justice Holt in the Civil Jurisdiction at the Supreme Court of Tasmania.

The legal issues that arose in this case primarily revolved around the interpretation and constitutional validity of certain sections of the Road Safety Act 2008. The appellants argued that these provisions were inconsistent with the Commonwealth’s exclusive legislative power over laws with respect to “matters of a federal character,” as outlined in the Constitution. They also contended that the provisions infringed upon their rights under the Australian Constitution. The court needed to determine whether the impugned sections of the Act were valid and consistent with the Constitution, and if not, what the appropriate remedy might be.

Justice Holt, in delivering the judgment, carefully examined the provisions in question and their alignment with the principles of federalism as established by the Constitution. The court found that the provisions of the Road Safety Act 2008 did not encroach upon the legislative powers reserved to the Commonwealth. The court reasoned that the provisions were integral to the regulation of road safety within the state, which was a matter within the legislative competence of Tasmania. Consequently, the challenge to the constitutionality of the Act was dismissed.

The court ruled that the provisions of the Road Safety Act 2008 were valid and did not infringe upon the constitutional rights of the appellants. As such, the appeal was dismissed, and the appellants' challenge to the constitutionality of the Act was rejected. The court's decision upheld the legislative authority of Tasmania to enact laws concerning road safety within the state.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established