Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania, Monday 26 August 2019

LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA, MONDAY 26 AUGUST 2019

HOBART

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Before Chief Justice BLOW

Criminal Jurisdiction

10:00 a.m.

For Bail Application

Candida Smedley

4:15 p.m.

Application to Vary Bail

Matthew John Rex Brown

For Directions Hearing

Cameron James Riley

State of Tasmania

David John Eaton

State of Tasmania

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Before Justice PEARCE

Criminal Jurisdiction

4:15p.m.

For Sentence

Brady Peter Penneyston

To Follow:

For Bail Application

Dylan James Gardiner

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Before Justice BRETT

Criminal Jurisdiction

2.15p.m.

For Bail Application

Ricky Peter Blyth

Before Associate Justice HOLT

Judges’ Chambers

Salamanca Place, Hobart

9.30 a.m.

For rule 414 directions hearing by telephone

Geoffrey Allen Tomlin & Anor

Mansfield Builders Pty Ltd & Ors

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart

10 a.m.

For hearing

Maree Matic

Simpson Networks Pty Ltd & Ors

LAUNCESTON

NO LAW LIST

BURNIE

NO LAW LIST

MAGISTRATES COURT LISTS available at:

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of Tasmania presided over several cases on Monday, 26 August 2019, with matters ranging from bail applications to directions hearings. Candida Smedley was the subject of a bail application, while Matthew John Rex Brown sought to vary his existing bail conditions. In the afternoon, Cameron James Riley appeared for a directions hearing in his case against the State of Tasmania, followed by the sentencing of Brady Peter Penneyston. Additionally, there was a bail application by Dylan James Gardiner, and Ricky Peter Blyth also sought bail. Civil matters were also scheduled, including a rule 414 directions hearing by telephone for Geoffrey Allen Tomlin and another against Mansfield Builders and others, and a hearing in the case of Maree Matic against Simpson Networks and others. The Launceston, Burnie, and Magistrates Court lists were also available.

The court addressed a variety of legal issues, including the assessment of bail applications and variations, directions in ongoing criminal cases, sentencing, and the handling of civil matters under rule 414. For the bail applications and variations, the court had to consider the risk of flight, the risk to the community, and the circumstances of the accused. In criminal cases, the directions hearing required the court to manage the proceedings efficiently and ensure that all parties were prepared for the next stages. Sentencing involved determining the appropriate penalty for the offence committed. The civil matters required the court to address procedural issues and ensure that the case progressed appropriately.

In the bail applications, the court considered the risk factors and the specific circumstances of each applicant. Candida Smedley's application was assessed based on her risk of flight and potential threat to the community. Matthew John Rex Brown's application for bail variation required the court to review the existing bail conditions and determine if changes were warranted. For Cameron James Riley's directions hearing, the court provided guidance on how to proceed with the case against the State of Tasmania. Sentencing Brady Peter Penneyston involved weighing the severity of the offence and the circumstances of the crime. The court also assessed the applications of Dylan James Gardiner and Ricky Peter Blyth for bail, considering their individual risks and circumstances. In the civil case, Geoffrey Allen Tomlin's rule 414 directions hearing aimed to address procedural issues and ensure the case's progression, while Maree Matic's case against Simpson Networks and others required the court to manage the litigation process effectively.

The court made decisions on each matter presented, including granting or denying bail, providing directions in criminal cases, sentencing, and managing civil proceedings. The outcomes of the bail applications were determined based on the individual assessments of risk and circumstances. The directions hearings facilitated the efficient progression of the cases, while sentencing provided closure to the criminal matters. The civil cases were managed to ensure proper litigation processes were followed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established