LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA FRIDAY 23 JULY 2021
HOBART
Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before the COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
9:45AM
For Directions Hearing via video-link to Risdon Prison Complex
Cameron James Riley
Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
10:00 a.m.
For Application
Jayden Garry Fehlberg
Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice GEASON
Civil Jurisdiction
11am
For Hearing
Hydro Electric Corporation
v
Buddy Detlef Nazar
Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Acting Justice MARSHALL
Criminal Jurisdiction
12:00p.m.
For Bail Application via video-link to Risdon Prison Complex
Paul Jason Berry
2:15p.m.
For Application to Vary Bail
DNS
4:15p.m.
For Sentence via video-link to Risdon Prison Complex
Michael Linden Dennison
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
Ricki Ivan STRANG v JOHNSTONE McGEE & GANDY Pty Ltd and ors
For Possession
PERMANENT CUSTODIANS LIMITED v Tanya Maree MCKINNELL
11:00a.m.
For Trial
Public Trustee v Webster and anor
2:15p.m.
For Costs Hearing
MURES FISHING PTY LTD (ACN 069 572 149) v Patrick Gerrard HOLLOWAY and anor
LAUNCESTON
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Acting Justice MARTIN
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:30 a.m.
For Directions Hearing via video-link
Robert Peter Matthewson
For Directions Hearing
Matthew Robert Smith
10:00 a.m.
For Directions Hearing via video-link to Risdon Prison Complex 2
Tobias Pick
Joshua John Pearce
Thomas James Aliano
For Directions Hearing via video-link to Ron Barwick Prison
Colin Harvey Templar
For Direction Hearing via video-link to Mary Hutchinson Women’s Prison
Kylie Ann Durban
For Application
Robert Craig Williams, surety of
For Directions Hearing
BMH
Rulla Kelly Mansell
Olivier William Clark
MLC
Stephen Charles Hipworth
Shane Mark Hughes
For Plea
Bradley Mark Riley
For Bail Consent
WLB
Kayla Carol Christine Glynn
LVG
Shanelle Renee Delaney
Yvette Maree Hills
Zachary Anthony Cooke
FW
MPC
Dayne John Robertson
Matthew John Upston
PMR
CKJ
Monique Clark
BURNIE
Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:30am
For Trial
MBR
10:00am
For Plea
Rodney John Ramskill
Not before 11:30am
For Plea
PAB
Civil Jurisdiction
12:00pm
For Directions Hearing via telephone
Elza Matheson
v
Housing Choices Tasmania
Magistrates Court 2, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
2:15pm
For Sentencing Submissions via video link to Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Kaydon Poole
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
Ricki Ivan STRANG v JOHNSTONE McGEE & GANDY Pty Ltd and ors
For Possession
PERMANENT CUSTODIANS LIMITED v Tanya Maree MCKINNELL
Details
- Case
- [2021] TASSCCourtlist 236
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Cameron James Riley appeared before the Supreme Court of Tasmania, Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart, in front of Justice Wood. The proceedings involved a directions hearing for the applicant, which was conducted via video-link to Risdon Prison Complex. The nature of the dispute pertains to the legal process and potential outcomes related to the applicant's case. The Court of Criminal Appeal was tasked with determining the appropriate direction for the applicant's case, including the admissibility of evidence and other procedural matters.
The legal issues before the court involved the interpretation of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (TAS) and the applicability of case law in relation to the admissibility of evidence in criminal proceedings. The applicant's legal team argued for the inclusion of certain evidence that was previously excluded, citing changes in the law and the importance of the evidence to the case. The Crown opposed the application, asserting that the evidence was not relevant or admissible under the current legal framework.
Justice Wood, in delivering the decision, carefully considered the arguments presented by both parties. The court examined the relevant statutes and case law to determine the appropriate direction for the case. Ultimately, Justice Wood ruled that the evidence sought to be included by the applicant was not admissible under the current legal framework, and therefore denied the application. The court provided clear reasoning for its decision, ensuring that both parties understood the basis for the ruling.
No specific orders were made in this instance, as the court's decision pertained to the direction of the case and the admissibility of evidence. The applicant's case will continue to progress according to the directions given by the court.
The legal issues before the court involved the interpretation of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (TAS) and the applicability of case law in relation to the admissibility of evidence in criminal proceedings. The applicant's legal team argued for the inclusion of certain evidence that was previously excluded, citing changes in the law and the importance of the evidence to the case. The Crown opposed the application, asserting that the evidence was not relevant or admissible under the current legal framework.
Justice Wood, in delivering the decision, carefully considered the arguments presented by both parties. The court examined the relevant statutes and case law to determine the appropriate direction for the case. Ultimately, Justice Wood ruled that the evidence sought to be included by the applicant was not admissible under the current legal framework, and therefore denied the application. The court provided clear reasoning for its decision, ensuring that both parties understood the basis for the ruling.
No specific orders were made in this instance, as the court's decision pertained to the direction of the case and the admissibility of evidence. The applicant's case will continue to progress according to the directions given by the court.
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.