Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Monday 26 October 2020 Summary

LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA MONDAY 26 OCTOBER 2020

HOBART

Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Civil Jurisdiction
11:00 a.m.
For Motion to Review
Chauncy Aaron Bell
v
Jessica Freeman and ors

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am
For Bail Application via video link to Risdon Prison Complex
Michael Linden Dennison

For Mention via video link to Risdon Prison Complex
Justin Craig Cleaver

For Mention
VKP
Brian Graham Dean Gordon

For Bail Consent
Aaron Dean Eaves

For Trial
AMB
Joshua Blair Read (Part-heard)

4:15pm
For Directions Hearing via video link to Risdon Prison Complex
Nicholas Aaron Scott

For Directions Hearing
Natasha Anne Hickey
Matthew Steven McCulloch

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice GEASON
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:30 a.m.
For Trial
Justin Richard Maynard

3:30 p.m.
For Bail Application
Craig John Smith

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Acting Justice PORTER
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00a.m.
For Directions Hearing via video-link to Risdon Prison Complex
Justin Kevin Pearce
Alani Povalu Moeakiola
Rad John Pearsall
Mitchell Allie
Daniel Joseph Williams
Mark Kyle Sherman
DER
Aiden Michael James Spaulding

For Directions Hearing via video-link to Hobart Reception Prison
Jed Curtis Leggett

For Directions Hearing
LGB
Joshua James Barda
Lisa Lyn Harwood
David Jeffrey Burridge
Brenden Edward Cotter
Sean Desmond Hawkes
Kellie Maree Umgeher
Christopher Mac Hatty
Kevin John Clancy
APA
Kenneth John Bailey
Rodney Jeffrey Bailey
Bobby Gene Jacobson
Dylan John Aiden Kemp
Matthew Lee Pearce
Shane Christopher Hardman
Lisa Maree Wells
James Mathew Johnson
Kylie Louise Wise
Luke Matthew John Chatters

For Sentencing Submissions
Joshua Scott Webster

Not Before 11:00a.m.
For Bail Application
Joseph Tonner

For Bail Application via video-link
VDS
Harrison Frederick Reynolds

For Bail Consent
Patrick Simon Bailey
Mark William Ransley
MJRB
Trent Scott Henricks
Katie Jane Shearing
Melinda Kate Lucas
ARTDS
Budde Mitchell Byrne
Barry Douglas Salter
Clinton Anthony Williams

4:00p.m.
For Sentence
Courtney Ian Richardson
Lyndon Ivan Bean

4:15p.m.
For Directions Hearing via video-link to Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston
Patrick Simon Bailey

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
10:00a.m. via Skype
For Security for Costs
Red Gecko Pty Ltd and anor v Archana Brammall and anor

LAUNCESTON

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00a.m.
For Trial
Bradley Lawrence Mykael Gee

4:15p.m
For Sentence
DIJL

For Plea
Kristeen Anne Taylor

Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Acting Justice PORTER
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15p.m.
For Directions Hearing via video-link to Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Patrick Simon Bailey

BURNIE

Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m
For Bail Consent
Todd Michael Walker

For Trial
P G T

11:00 a.m
For Mention
Dane Ronald Pyke

4:00 p.m
For Application
Darren Paul Howell

For Plea
Robert Michael Cummings

The Supreme Court of Tasmania heard a case involving Chauncy Aaron Bell, who filed a motion to review a decision against him in a case against Jessica Freeman and others. The legal issues before the court included the scope and applicability of the review process in cases involving alleged breaches of procedural fairness, as well as the standard of proof required for such a review to succeed. The court examined the relevant statutory provisions and case law, and concluded that the applicant had not met the requisite standard of proof for a successful review. The court found that the original decision was correctly made and dismissed the motion to review.

In reaching its decision, the court carefully considered the evidence and submissions presented by both parties. The court found that the applicant had failed to demonstrate that the original decision-maker had acted outside of their jurisdiction, had made an error of law, or had failed to consider relevant evidence. The court also found that the applicant had not demonstrated that the original decision had resulted in a miscarriage of justice or a significant injustice. The court's decision was based on a thorough analysis of the applicable law and the evidence before it.

The court's decision was final and binding on the parties involved in the case. The applicant was not successful in his motion to review, and the original decision remained in place. The court's decision serves as an important reminder of the high standard of proof required for a successful review, and the limited circumstances in which such a review may be granted. The case also highlights the importance of procedural fairness in legal proceedings, and the need for decision-makers to carefully consider all relevant evidence and arguments before reaching a decision.

Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Monday 26 October 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established