Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania, Friday 30 October, 2020

LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA, FRIDAY 30 OCTOBER, 2020

HOBART

Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Civil Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Motion to Review
TT-Line Company Pty Ltd
v
Rae Burrows

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15 p.m.
For Application
Mark Anthony Bell

PWR, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
For Directions Hearing via video link to Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
The Queen
v
Paul James Rischke

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:30am
For Trial
AMB

10:00am
For Bail Consent
Shaun Edward Hodges
Geoffrey Bennett-Scrimshaw

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice GEASON
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:30 a.m.
For Trial
Justin Richard Maynard

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Acting Justice PORTER
Criminal Jurisdiction
11:30a.m.
For Sentence
Joshua Scott Webster

LAUNCESTON

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:00a.m
For Trial
Bradley Lawrence Mykael Gee

10:00a.m.
For Directions Hearing via Telephone
Hannah Victoria Paige Strong
Robert Peter Matthewson

For Directions Hearing via video link to PWR, Salamanca Place, Hobart
The Queen
v
Paul James Rischke

For Mention via video link
Mathew Leigh Coates
Cedric Harper Jordan

For Preliminary Proceedings Application via video link
Noelene June Jordan

For Mention
BJF
Adam John Axton
Luke Frans Bezemer
Kyam Keith Broadby
Zachary Anthony Cooke
Mark Anthony Carr
Colin Harvey Templar
Codie Ken Fazackerley
Timothy Edward Double
Jesse James Martin
Ashton James Whittingham
Ethan Daniel Baker

For Application
Bradley James Jetson

For Plea
Bradley Colin Hay
FRLT

For Bail Consent
Joshua Brian Smith
Daniel Mark Delphine
Cheryl Jane Holton
Toby David Torrents
Naomi Jean Hamill
John David Clinton
Kerrie Anne George
Neil Craig Berne
Stephen James Williams
Mark Richard Nicholas
Russell Peter Haworth
Mark Anthony Carr
JK
Mark Phillip Leslie
Paul Laurence Lowe
RBAY

2:15p.m.
For Application
Damien Neil smart

For Plea
BJF

BURNIE

NO LAW LIST

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of Tasmania, on October 30, 2020, handled several cases involving both civil and criminal jurisdiction. TT-Line Company Pty Ltd was involved in a motion to review against Rae Burrows, presided over by Chief Justice BLOW. This matter likely involved contractual disputes or disputes arising from maritime operations. Another case, Mark Anthony Bell, involved a criminal application before Justice PEARCE, indicating a procedural or evidentiary matter within the criminal jurisdiction. Additionally, the court heard cases such as The Queen v Paul James Rischke, which would involve criminal charges against the defendant, and criminal trials such as those of Justin Richard Maynard and Shaun Edward Hodges Geoffrey Bennett-Scrimshaw.

The court was tasked with resolving issues such as the validity and interpretation of motions to review, procedural fairness in criminal applications, and the admissibility and weight of evidence in criminal trials. In the civil matter, the court would have considered whether there were grounds for a review of the decision made by Rae Burrows, potentially challenging the outcome or process of a prior legal decision. In criminal matters, the court had to decide on the admissibility of evidence, procedural rights of the accused, and the appropriate sentencing in light of the evidence presented.

The reasoning and outcome of the cases were delivered by the respective judges. For the civil motion to review, Chief Justice BLOW likely examined the grounds for review and whether the decision in question was erroneous or unfair. In criminal applications, Justice PEARCE would have considered the legal merits of the application and whether it complied with procedural requirements. In trials, Justice GEASON and Acting Justice PORTER would have assessed the credibility and weight of the evidence presented, and in sentencing, the court would have considered the principles of justice and deterrence. The final outcomes of these cases would have been communicated to the parties, potentially including decisions on remand, acquittals, or convictions and sentences.

The final orders of the court would have been communicated to the respective parties, providing clarity on the legal outcomes and any necessary next steps. For the civil case, the court would have either allowed or dismissed the motion to review, potentially leading to a retrial or reaffirmation of the original decision. In the criminal cases, the court would have made decisions on bail, pleas, and sentences, which would directly impact the defendants' legal status and future.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established