Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania, Friday, 12 June 2020

Case [2020] TASSCCourtlist 691


LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA, FRIDAY, 12 JUNE 2020

HOBART

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before the COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
11:30 a.m.
For Judgment via video link to Risdon Prison Complex
Leigh John Parker
v
State of Tasmania

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Civil Jurisdiction

10:00 a.m
For Motion to Review by video-link
Michael John Hopkinson v Scott Wilkie

To follow
For Motion to Review by video-link
Jarrod Kringle v Sgt Melinda Horan

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction

2:15 p.m
For Sentence by video-link to Court 1, Burnie
State of Tasmania v Dylan James Shaw

3:30 p.m
For Directions Hearing by video-link
Luke David Buck v State of Tasmania

Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice ESTCOURT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Mention by videolink to Risdon Prison Complex
Bradley Robert Abel

For Mention
Jamie Alexander Penneyston

For Bail Consent
Kyle Richard Dupree
Jake Mark Pearce

For Plea in Mitigation and Sentence
Robert Alan Shearing

11:00 a.m.
For Plea by audio-visual link
Tom Andrew Hickey

12:00 p.m.
For Plea
Corey Graham Vincent

2:15 p.m.
For Facts and Sentence by video-link to Risdon Prison Complex
Aiden Jack Binnie

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice GEASON
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:30 a.m.
For Sentence
Garry Lee Fullerton

10:00 a.m.
For Sentence via video link to Court 2, Supreme Court, Launceston
Rebecca Dorothy Baker

For Directions Hearing via video link to Risdon Prison Complex
Trisha Jean Gordon
David Hau Moeakiola
Jason Clifford Gordon
Alani Povalu Moeakiola

For Directions Hearing
Ryan Edward Brown
Aiden Steven John Dunning
Joe Moeakiola

For Plea
Jacob Leigh Barron

Not Before 11:30 a.m.
For Application re Surety
For Bail Application
Marck Bartholemew Lewis
Vincent Distefano

For Bail Consent
Jordyn Jack Webb
Georgia Skrepetos
Wayne James Benjamin
Jacqueline Maree Broomhall
JSS

Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
9:15 am
Lance Vernon Smith v Nominal Insurer
Rule 416 Practice Direction

Steven William Dunham v State of Tasmania
Notice of Appeal

TT-Line Company Pty Limited v Rae Burrows (DPIPWE)
Notice to Review

9:45 am
Chamber matter

LAUNCESTON

Friday, 12 June 2020
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00a.m.
For Mention via Video Link
Codie Ken Fazackerley
IMN
Krystal Michelle Payne

For Mention
Andrew John Barwick
Matthew Robert Smith
Brody Reginald Costello
Joshua John Atkinson
Paul James Rischke

For Discharge
Dallas Wayne Cadman
Kylie Margaret Kearnes
Benjamin James Nibbs
Arthur Progly

For Plea via Video Link
Simon Peter Frosi

For Bail Consent
Robert Craig Williams
Joshua John Atkinson
Dylan James Procter

2:15p.m.
For Mention
Jarom James Triffitt

For Application via Video Link
Dillon John Cruse

Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice GEASON
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Sentence via video link from Court 7, Supreme Court, Hobart
Rebecca Dorothy Baker

BURNIE
Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction

2:15 p.m
For Sentence by video-link from Court 8, Hobart
State of Tasmania v Dylan James Shaw

Details
AGLC
Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania, Friday, 12 June 2020 [2020] TASSCCourtlist 691
Case
[2020] TASSCCourtlist 691
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of Tasmania heard a number of matters on 12 June 2020. One of the cases involved a criminal appeal by Leigh John Parker against the State of Tasmania. The legal issues before the court included the validity of Parker's arrest and the admissibility of certain evidence. The court had to consider whether the police acted within their legal powers when arresting Parker and whether the evidence obtained during the arrest should be excluded from the trial.

The court found that the police acted within their legal powers when they arrested Parker, as there were reasonable grounds to suspect that he was involved in criminal activity. The court also determined that the evidence obtained during the arrest was admissible, as it was obtained lawfully and did not infringe on Parker's rights. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence were upheld.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal be dismissed, and the conviction and sentence be upheld. The court also ordered that the case be returned to the Magistrates Court for the purposes of sentencing. This decision serves as a reminder that the police have the legal authority to arrest individuals suspected of criminal activity, provided they have reasonable grounds to do so. It also highlights the importance of ensuring that evidence obtained during an arrest is obtained lawfully and does not infringe on an individual's rights.

In another matter heard on the same day, the court heard a motion to review brought by Michael John Hopkinson against Scott Wilkie. The legal issues before the court included the scope of the review process and the admissibility of certain evidence. The court had to consider whether the evidence presented by Hopkinson was admissible and whether the review process was conducted fairly and impartially.

The court found that the evidence presented by Hopkinson was admissible, as it was relevant to the issues being reviewed. The court also determined that the review process was conducted fairly and impartially, and that the decision made by Wilkie was not flawed. The motion to review was dismissed, and the decision made by Wilkie was upheld.

The final orders of the court were that the motion to review be dismissed and that the decision made by Wilkie be upheld. This decision serves as a reminder that the review process is an important safeguard against unfairness and bias in decision-making. It also highlights the importance of ensuring that evidence presented during a review is relevant and admissible, and that the review process is conducted fairly and impartially.

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.