Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania, Friday, 13 April 2018 Summary

LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA, FRIDAY, 13 APRIL 2018

HOBART

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before the COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
10:00 a.m.
For Hearing
The Director of Public Prosecutions
v
Hayley Margaret Webster

Hayley Margaret Webster
v
The Director of Public Prosecutions

To Follow
For Hearing
Director of Public Prosecutions
v
MAC

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:30 a.m.
For Bail Application
Chauncy Aaron Bell
Bradley Towns

10:00 a.m.
For Sentencing Submissions
Scott Andrew Cripps

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
2:15 p.m.
For Sentence
DFP

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice ESTCOURT
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:00 p.m.
For Bail Application
Andrew David Gilley
Anthony Fewkes
Brenton Roy Gourlay

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
Criminal Jurisdiction
11:00 a.m.
For Preliminary Proceedings
Gary Matthews
Kylie Jane Hack
(Part-Heard)

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

LAUNCESTON

NO LAW LIST FOR LAUNCESTON

BURNIE

NO LAW 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

The Supreme Court of Tasmania heard a matter involving Hayley Margaret Webster against the Director of Public Prosecutions. The nature of the dispute appears to be a criminal appeal brought by Webster against a decision made by the Director of Public Prosecutions. The hearing took place before the Court of Criminal Appeal on 13 April 2018.

The legal issues before the court would have involved examining the validity and fairness of the proceedings against Webster, potentially including the admissibility of evidence, the correctness of the application of law, or other procedural issues that could have affected the outcome of the case. The court was tasked with determining whether the decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions was just and whether any errors occurred that warranted altering the original decision.

The court’s reasoning and outcome were not explicitly detailed in the provided extract. However, the proceedings would have involved a comprehensive review of the legal arguments presented by both parties, with the court providing a judgment based on the merits of the case and relevant legal principles. Given the nature of a criminal appeal, the decision could have either upheld the original decision, quashed it, or potentially ordered a retrial or other remedies.

No specific final orders were mentioned in the provided text, but in cases of this nature, the court could have issued a formal written judgment detailing its findings and orders. The judgment would have addressed the specific legal issues raised, provided reasoning for the decision, and outlined any necessary steps to be taken in light of the court's ruling.

Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania, Friday, 13 April 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established