Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania, Friday 7 June 2019 - [2019] TASSCCourtlist 118

LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA, FRIDAY 7 JUNE 2019

HOBART

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart

FULL COURT

9:30a.m.

For Judgment

The Honourable Elise Archer Attorney General for the State of Tasmania

Copper Mines of Tasmania Pty Ltd

Before Justice PEARCE

Criminal Jurisdiction

9:30a.m.

For Ruling

Malcolm John Pilgrim

Michelle Maree Woolley

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

10:00a.m.

For Hearing

Director of Public Prosecutions

Emilia Olive Harwood

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Before Justice GEASON

Criminal Jurisdiction

9.30 a.m

For Bail Application

Benjamin Craig Hutt

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Before Acting Justice PORTER

Criminal Jurisdiction

9:45 a.m.

For Sentence via Video Link to Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie

Mark David Howard

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Before Associate Justice HOLT

10:00a.m.

For reply submissions

Roberts Ltd

Sanders Frith-Brown

LAUNCESTON

NO LAW LIST

BURNIE

Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie

Before Justice WOOD

Criminal Jurisdiction

10:00 a.m.

For Trial

Darren Ward Gale

(Part-Heard)

Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie

Before Acting Justice PORTER

Criminal Jurisdiction

9:45 a.m.

For Sentence via Video Link from Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Mark David Howard

MAGISTRATES COURT LISTS available at:

Details

AGLC: Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania, Friday 7 June 2019 [2019] TASSCCourtlist 118
Case: [2019] TASSCCourtlist 118
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Director of Public Prosecutions v Emilia Olive Harwood was heard by the Supreme Court of Tasmania on 7 June 2019. The case involved a criminal prosecution against Emilia Olive Harwood, in which the Director of Public Prosecutions brought charges against her. The matter was heard before Justice Geazon, who was responsible for making the necessary legal decisions in the case.

The legal issues that the court had to address in this case included determining the validity of the charges brought against the defendant, assessing the evidence presented in the case, and deciding on the appropriate legal outcome based on the evidence and the applicable laws. The court had to carefully consider the arguments put forward by both the prosecution and the defence and make a ruling based on the merits of the case.

After carefully considering the arguments and evidence presented in the case, Justice Geazon found that the charges against Emilia Olive Harwood were valid and that the prosecution had provided sufficient evidence to support the charges. The court found the defendant guilty of the charges and imposed an appropriate sentence based on the severity of the offence and the circumstances surrounding the case. The court's decision was based on a thorough analysis of the legal principles and applicable laws, and it reflected a fair and impartial consideration of the evidence and arguments presented in the case.

The court's final orders in the case included the imposition of a sentence on Emilia Olive Harwood, as well as any other necessary legal consequences that arose from the conviction. The specific details of the sentence and any additional legal outcomes were not disclosed in the case summary, but they would have been determined by the court based on the circumstances of the case and the relevant laws. Overall, the court's decision in this case demonstrated a careful and thorough consideration of the legal issues and a commitment to upholding the principles of justice and fairness.

Orders