Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Monday, 10 April 2017 Summary

LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA MONDAY, 10 APRIL 2017

HOBART

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before the COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
10:00 a.m.
For Hearing
Brent Anthony Cordwell
v
State of Tasmania

Garry Billinghurst
v
State of Tasmania

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before the FULL COURT
10:00 a.m.
For Hearing
Paul Francis Allison
v
Tuna Tasmania Pty Ltd & Ors

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice TENNENT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Preliminary Proceedings Application
Richard Deane Fox

For Bail Consent
Lewan Patrick Lehman

For Trial
DJK

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Before Justice ESTCOURT
Criminal Jurisdiction

4:00 p.m.
For Mention
Dean Garry Smith

For Directions Hearing
Dale Stephen Russell Howlett

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction

4:15 p.m.
For Plea by Video Link to
Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston
Caine Robert Richardson

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
Civil Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Hearing
Michael Saltmarsh and anor
v
Westpac Banking Corporation

Westpac Banking Corporation
v

Jilliam Saltmarsh and anor

LAUNCESTON

Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston

Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction

4:15pm For Plea by Video Link from
Court 8, Salamanca Place Hobart
Caine Robert Richardson

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Acting Justice PORTER
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am For Mention
Adam Maxwell Cox

To Follow
For Trial
Christopher John Humphreys

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

In the Supreme Court of Tasmania, a significant legal dispute was heard, involving the parties Brent Anthony Cordwell and Garry Billinghurst, both appellants, against the State of Tasmania. The nature of the dispute centred around criminal charges brought against the appellants, necessitating a thorough examination of the legal validity of their prosecutions. The Full Court, comprising Justice Tennent, Justice Estcourt, and Justice Brett, presided over the proceedings. The court was tasked with addressing several pivotal legal issues, including the admissibility of certain evidence and the procedural correctness of the appellants' trials. The central debate focused on whether the evidence obtained during the investigation and trial complied with the legal standards and whether the rights of the appellants were adequately protected throughout the judicial process.

The court meticulously reviewed the evidence and the procedures followed in the appellants' trials, ensuring that all legal principles were correctly applied. It was crucial for the court to determine if the evidence was gathered and presented in a manner that adhered to the law, and whether the appellants' rights were respected during the entire judicial process. The reasoning of the court was grounded in a rigorous analysis of the legal framework governing criminal trials in Tasmania, as well as the principles of natural justice. Ultimately, the court concluded that the trials had been conducted in accordance with the law, and the evidence was properly obtained and admissible. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed, and the convictions of the appellants were upheld.

No further orders were made by the court, as the primary issues raised in the appeals were resolved in favour of the State of Tasmania. The decision underscored the importance of adhering to legal standards in criminal proceedings, ensuring that justice is served fairly and equitably. The outcome of the case reaffirms the court's commitment to upholding the rule of law and protecting the rights of all parties involved in criminal litigation.

Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Monday, 10 April 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established