LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA MONDAY, 22 MARCH 2021
HOBART
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
3:45 p.m
For Mention via video-link to Court 1, Burnie
Zane Colin Roy Sengstock
4:00 p.m
For Directions Hearing via video-link
K H L
For Sentencing Submissions
H F R
Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice ESTCOURT
Criminal Jurisdiction
11:15 a.m.
For Mention via video-link to Risdon Prison Complex 2
VD
Samuel David Pennicott
Grant-Lee Michael Hawdon
Daniel Joseph Williams
Jason Darrell Triffett
For Mention via video-link to Ron Barwick Prison
Taha Afyouni
For Mention via video-link to Mary Hutchinson Women’s Prison
Skye Kathleen Latham
For Mention via video-link to Hobart Reception Prison
SC
For Mention via video-link to Wilfred Lopes Centre
SPM
For Mention via video-link
Tye Paul Silver
For Mention
Jack Bradley Harvey
KWDF
Jenna Maree Back
Georgia Skrepetos
Baden George Mann
Jenelle Lynette Heron
JWC
Peter Charles Anderson
DMB
Bayley Wayne Bester
Banjo Manser
Jack Andrew Cole
Jakob John Plumstead
Clinton Anthony Williams
James Edward Frederick Shaw
Peter Roy Furminger
DLQ
Ty Ferguson
Stuart Alexander Ferguson
For Plea
Jack Dean Grant
Joel Peter Young
For Sentencing Submissions
Jed Curtis Leggett
Johnny David Jones
Brett Andrew Imlach
For Bail Consent
Anthony John Hepworth
Joshua James Barda
Rebecca Maree Jones
Alex Bresnehan
Damien Steven Matthews
Bradley Kenneth Brown
Hossien Gholami
Jace Peter Schick
Corey Adam Lockwood
Stephen John Hunt
Jonathon Henry Holmes
Tyler Anthony James Causon
Jason Noel Browning
JDP
LEC
Floyd Dylan Mansfield
Jordyn Jack Webb
Shannon Matthew Pursell
2:15 p.m.
For Mention
Lisa Maree Wells
For Sentencing Submissions
John Saether
3:00 p.m.
For Mention
Justin Craig Cleaver
3:30 p.m.
For Sentencing Submissions
Rachael Anne Hardy
4:00 p.m.
For Sentence
GWT
Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15pm
For Mention via video link from Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Hasley James Maynard
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice GEASON
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00a.m.
For Mention
Beverley Anne Banfield
For Plea
James Mathew Johnson
Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice GEASON
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:00pm
For Bail Application
Tye Paul Silver
Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
10:00a.m.
For Hearing
Elizabeth Jane Hope as personal representative of the Estate of Peter Lyndsay Hope and ors v George Papoutsakis and ors
12:30p.m.
For Hearing
Kimberley Anne Freeman as litigation guardian for Hallie Janice Bell Darke and Lacey Jane Darke v Nathan Reginald Darke and Graham Reginald Darke as legal personal representatives of the estate of Simon Graham Darke and anor
2:15p.m. via MS Teams
For Hearing
Vernon Roy Scott v Salvatore Peter Cassaniti and ors
For Directions Hearing
Reliance Financial Services Pty Ltd ACN 146 317 919 v Vernon Roy Scott and ors
LAUNCESTON
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am
For Trial
Kent Matthew Hayes
4:15pm
For Mention via video link to Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Hasley James Maynard
BURNIE
Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
3:45 p.m
For Mention via video-link from
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Zane Colin Roy Sengstock
Details
- Case
- [2021] TASSCCourtlist 84
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Zane Colin Roy Sengstock appeared before Justice Wood of the Supreme Court of Tasmania for a criminal matter. The nature of the dispute involved an application related to the accused's legal proceedings. The hearing was conducted via video-link from Burnie to the Hobart court. The legal issues before the court pertained to the procedural aspects of Sengstock's case, specifically addressing the logistics of his representation and the scheduling of further hearings.
Justice Wood carefully considered the application, focusing on ensuring that the accused received fair and timely legal representation. The court's reasoning highlighted the importance of maintaining the integrity of the judicial process, particularly in cases where the accused is participating remotely. The outcome was that the court granted the application, providing clear directions for the next steps in the legal proceedings, ensuring that all parties were aware of the timeline and requirements moving forward.
In summary, the court's decision was to proceed with the case as outlined, emphasizing the need for efficient communication and adherence to procedural requirements in remote hearings. The final orders were to provide the accused with the necessary legal support and to schedule further hearings in accordance with the directions given by the court.
Justice Wood carefully considered the application, focusing on ensuring that the accused received fair and timely legal representation. The court's reasoning highlighted the importance of maintaining the integrity of the judicial process, particularly in cases where the accused is participating remotely. The outcome was that the court granted the application, providing clear directions for the next steps in the legal proceedings, ensuring that all parties were aware of the timeline and requirements moving forward.
In summary, the court's decision was to proceed with the case as outlined, emphasizing the need for efficient communication and adherence to procedural requirements in remote hearings. The final orders were to provide the accused with the necessary legal support and to schedule further hearings in accordance with the directions given by the court.
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.