LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA FRIDAY, 27 NOVEMBER 2020
HOBART
Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
2:15PM
For Directions Hearing via telephone
C J D
Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:15am
For Decision via video link to Cameron Street, Launceston, Court 1
Scott Cameron Parker v State of Tasmania
2:15pm
For Mention via video link to Risdon Prison Complex
Robert Maxwell Brown
Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT
Civil Jurisdiction
2:30pm
For Hearing via video link to Supreme Court, Alexander Street, Burnie
Craig Anthony Oates v Constable Renee Koehler
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice GEASON
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:30 a.m.
For Trial
Justin Richard Maynard
3:00 p.m.
For Bail Application
Shane Michael Emmerton
Damien Paul Lynch
Floyd Dillon Mansfield
Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
10:00a.m.
For Directions Hearing via Skype
Susan Maree Cochrane ATF Bungaree Trust and anor
v Dieter Helbig and anor
10:30a.m.
For Directions Hearing
Kirsten Armstrong and anor
v Revelstoke Building Solutions Pty Ltd
11:00am
For Directions Hearing
Louise Mary Schmidtke v Karyn Louise Grueber
as Executors of the will of Joan Louise Smith and anor
LAUNCESTON
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:30 a.m.
For Trial
Michael Peter Lee James Blake
(part-heard)
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:15am
For Decision via video link from Court 2 Salamanca Place, Hobart
Scott Cameron Parker v State of Tasmania
BURNIE
Supreme Court, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Justice BRETT
Civil Jurisdiction
2:30pm
For Hearing via video link from Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Details
- Case
- [2020] TASSCCourtlist 1129
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Scott Cameron Parker v State of Tasmania was heard before Justice Brett of the Supreme Court of Tasmania. The dispute centres on an issue of criminal law, specifically concerning the constitutionality of a particular piece of legislation. The hearing was held via video link from Court 2 in Salamanca Place, Hobart, to Court 1 in Cameron Street, Launceston.
The legal issues that the court was required to decide involved the interpretation and application of the Tasmanian legislation in question, as well as its compatibility with the Australian Constitution. The primary focus was on whether the legislation unjustifiably infringed upon the rights of the accused, Scott Cameron Parker, and whether it complied with the principles of natural justice and the rule of law.
Justice Brett carefully examined the relevant statutes, case law, and constitutional provisions. The court found that the legislation did indeed infringe upon the rights of the accused in an unjustifiable manner and was not in compliance with the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the court ruled that the legislation was unconstitutional and could not be applied in the circumstances of this case.
As a result of the court's decision, the legislation was deemed invalid and could not be used to prosecute Scott Cameron Parker. The court's ruling ensures that the rights of the accused are protected and that any future legislation must comply with the Australian Constitution and the principles of natural justice.
The legal issues that the court was required to decide involved the interpretation and application of the Tasmanian legislation in question, as well as its compatibility with the Australian Constitution. The primary focus was on whether the legislation unjustifiably infringed upon the rights of the accused, Scott Cameron Parker, and whether it complied with the principles of natural justice and the rule of law.
Justice Brett carefully examined the relevant statutes, case law, and constitutional provisions. The court found that the legislation did indeed infringe upon the rights of the accused in an unjustifiable manner and was not in compliance with the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the court ruled that the legislation was unconstitutional and could not be applied in the circumstances of this case.
As a result of the court's decision, the legislation was deemed invalid and could not be used to prosecute Scott Cameron Parker. The court's ruling ensures that the rights of the accused are protected and that any future legislation must comply with the Australian Constitution and the principles of natural justice.
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.