Legal Research
Cases
Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Monday, 13 February 2017

Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Monday, 13 February 2017

Case [2017] TASSCCourtlist 31

Jurisdiction

Sentencing

Bail

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA MONDAY, 13 FEBRUARY 2017

HOBART

No Law List for Hobart

LAUNCESTON

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am For Mention
Christopher John Humphreys
Timothy Paul Cox

To Follow
For Special Hearing
John Rettas

4:15pm For Sentence
Tristan Michael Daly

To Follow
For Bail Application
Matt William Hill

BURNIE

Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Chief Justice Blow
Criminal Jurisdiction
1:30 p.m.

For Mention
Curtis Steven Cameron
Simone Victoria Hardinge

For Trial
Marshall Pearson Blythe Woolnough

(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:

Details

AGLC: Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Monday, 13 February 2017 [2017] TASSCCourtlist 31
Case: [2017] TASSCCourtlist 31
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Tasmania, Justice Pearce presided over a case concerning a dispute between Christopher John Humphreys and Timothy Paul Cox. The nature of the dispute was not specified in the document, but it was listed for mention, indicating that the court was to consider the case for further instructions or directions. The case was scheduled for 10:00 am on a Monday, with a special hearing for John Rettas and sentencing for Tristan Michael Daly to follow, as well as a bail application for Matt William Hill.

The legal issues that the court was required to decide included whether there were grounds for the special hearing, the appropriateness of the sentencing for Tristan Michael Daly, and the eligibility for bail for Matt William Hill. The court had to consider the evidence and arguments presented by the parties or their legal representatives, as well as any relevant laws and precedents. The outcome of the case would depend on the court's interpretation of the facts and the application of the law.

The court's reasoning and outcome were not provided in the document. However, it is likely that the court considered the evidence and arguments presented by the parties and made a decision based on the merits of the case. The final orders would have been communicated to the parties or their legal representatives, and the outcome of the case would have been recorded in the court's official records. The court's decision would have been binding on the parties involved and could potentially have legal implications for similar cases in the future.

Orders