Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania, Monday 29 July 2019 Summary

LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA, MONDAY 29 JULY 2019

HOBART

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Before Justice WOOD

Criminal Jurisdiction

10:00 a.m.

For Directions Hearing

Dean Phillip Braslin

For Trial

Timothy Leslie Brown

(Part-Heard)

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Before Justice GEASON

Criminal Jurisdiction

10:00 a.m.

For Disputed Facts Hearing

Daniel Baker

(Part-Heard)

For Bail Application

Sean Patrick Mahoney

(Part-Heard)

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Before Acting Justice PORTER

Criminal Jurisdiction

10:00 a.m.

For Directions Hearing via Video Link

Peter John O’Neill

For Mention via Video Link to Risdon Prison Complex

Christopher John Worker

For Directions Hearing via Video Link to Risdon Prison Complex

Timo Murto

Daniel Ivan McCheyne

For Preliminary Proceedings Application via Video Link to Risdon Prison Complex

BGM

For Preliminary Proceedings Application via Video Link to Hobart Reception Prison

Shayne William Jones

For Directions Hearing

Nicholas John Barrett

Kobin Keith David Golding

James Andrew Wright

Leigh Douglas Monks

Shaun Brodie Parremore

Andrew Gregory Kennedy

DTN

Georgina Elizabeth Carter

Victor Kent Park

For Preliminary Proceedings Application

Jeevan Thiyagarajah

For Bail Consent

Christopher Lewis Emery

Paul Harold Kennedy Fulton

Christopher Mac Hatty

For Plea

Simone Helen Barratt

Alexander Brett White

Not Before 11:00 a.m.

For Bail Application

Rachel Ellen Morgan

Bradley James Irwin

Derek Todd

2:00 p.m.

For Bail Application

Samuel Tarquin Dick

LAUNCESTON

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston

Before Justice BRETT

Criminal Jurisdiction

10:00 a.m.

For Mention

KSM

Charles John Rattray

Ricky Lee Smith-Towns

Adrian Michael Johnson

A Witness

10:00 a.m.

For Trial

SGR

4:15 p.m.

For Sentence

Emily Jane Thompson

For Application

MGR

BURNIE

Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie

Before Justice PEARCE

Criminal Jurisdiction

10:00a.m.

For Backstop Trial

Quentin Kevin Bob Osbourne

For Bail Consent

Matthew David Gillies

For Trial

CJW

4:15p.m.

For Mention

ACS

To Follow

For Plea

AJG

MAGISTRATES COURT LISTS available at:

Details

AGLC: Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania, Monday 29 July 2019 [2019] TASSCCourtlist 150
Case: [2019] TASSCCourtlist 150
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of Tasmania convened on Monday 29 July 2019, with several cases listed across its Hobart and Launceston courts. The cases involved a variety of criminal matters, including directions hearings, disputed facts hearings, bail applications, and trials. Notable cases included Timothy Leslie Brown, who faced a trial, and Daniel Baker, who had a disputed facts hearing. Additionally, a bail application was heard for Samuel Tarquin Dick in Launceston.

The legal issues the court was required to decide varied across the cases. In the case of Timothy Leslie Brown, the court needed to determine the procedural steps for the upcoming trial. For Daniel Baker, the court had to resolve factual disputes that were central to the case. Bail applications required the court to assess whether the applicants met the criteria for release under the Bail Act 1982 (Tas). Each case required careful consideration of the evidence, legal arguments, and relevant statutes.

Justice Wood, Justice Geason, and Acting Justice Porter presided over the hearings in Hobart, addressing various procedural and factual issues. Decisions were made regarding the direction of trials, resolution of disputed facts, and the granting or refusal of bail based on the merits of each case. The court's reasoning was grounded in the evidence presented, legal principles, and the specific circumstances of each defendant. Justice Brett also handled cases in Launceston, focusing on matters such as mentions and trials.

The final orders varied according to the specific case. For instance, the court may have set trial dates, resolved disputed facts, or decided on bail terms. Each order was tailored to the unique circumstances of the case, ensuring that the legal process was followed appropriately.

Orders