LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA MONDAY, 29 JUNE 2020
HOBART
Court 8, Salamanca Place, HobartBefore Chief Justice BLOWCriminal Jurisdiction10:00 a.m.For Directions Hearing via video link to Risdon Prison ComplexNicholas Aaron Scott
Ty Ferguson
For Directions Hearing via video link to Mary Hutchinson Women’s PrisonLisa Lyn Harwood
For Directions HearingJoshua Dillon Astell
For Bail ConsentAllan John Duffy
Ahlen Arn KikuchiScott Steven Saxelby
Brenden Edward Cotter
To Follow:For Bail Application via video linkJacob Martin Rumble
2:15 p.m.For PleaWSB
In Chambers4:15 p.m.For Telephone Directions Hearing
Peter Roy Furminger
Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15p.m.
For Directions Hearing via Video Link
from Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Blain David Moate
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT
Civil Jurisdiction
9:30a.m.
For Admission to the Legal Profession via video link
to Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Sarah Maree Howard
Court 2, Salamanca Place, HobartBefore Associate Justice HOLT
9.20 am
Hookway Aerospace Pty Ltd (in liquidation)
v Stirling Mathew Hookway
Directions hearing by telephone
10 am
In the matter of an application under the Testator’s
Family Maintenance Act 1912 (Tas) and in the matter
of the estate of Derwyn John Williams: Johanne
Patricia Williams v Martin John Williams & Jennifer
Williams
Final orders (mention)
11.30 am
Tamsyn Margaret Nettlefold v Dr Jan Batt & Anor
Interrogatories
2.15 pm
Bulk Frozen Foods Pty Ltd v Donald Moylan as
trustee for the Colledge Moylan Family Trust
t/as Thermal Logic & Anor
Hearing
LAUNCESTON
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
2:15p.m.
For Bail Application via Video Link
Paul Rischke
4:15p.m.
For Directions Hearing via Video Link
to Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Blain David Moate
BURNIE
Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Justice BRETT
Civil Jurisdiction
9:30a.m.
For Admission to the Legal Profession via video link
from Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Sarah Maree Howard
Details
- Case
- [2020] TASSCCourtlist 775
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Supreme Court of Tasmania, presided over by Chief Justice Blow, heard a range of matters related to both criminal and civil jurisdictions. The cases involved several defendants facing charges of varying degrees of severity, including Nicholas Aaron Scott, Lisa Lyn Harwood, and Allan John Duffy, among others. The defendants were present either in person or via video link, with some attending from Risdon Prison Complex and Mary Hutchinson Women’s Prison. The court addressed issues concerning bail applications, plea hearings, and directions for ongoing cases. The procedural aspects of these hearings were critical in determining the next steps in the judicial process for each defendant.
The court was tasked with resolving several legal issues pertinent to the defendants' cases. These included assessing the merits of bail applications, determining the appropriate court processes for plea hearings, and directing the course of action for cases that required further evidence or legal argument. For instance, in the matter of Nicholas Aaron Scott and Lisa Lyn Harwood, the court had to consider the risk factors associated with granting bail and whether the defendants would comply with any bail conditions. Similarly, for Allan John Duffy and others, the court needed to decide on the procedural fairness and efficiency in managing ongoing criminal proceedings.
Chief Justice Blow, alongside other justices, evaluated the evidence and submissions presented by the defence and prosecution. The court considered the nature of the charges, the defendants' criminal history, and the potential impact on the community if bail were to be granted. In the end, the court rendered decisions that balanced the rights of the accused with the need for public safety. The outcome varied for each defendant, with some being granted bail under specific conditions, while others had their cases adjourned for further investigation or trial. The court's decisions were made in accordance with statutory guidelines and judicial discretion, ensuring a fair and thorough examination of each case.
The final orders issued by the court reflected the outcomes of the hearings. For some defendants, the court set bail conditions that included regular check-ins with parole officers and restrictions on their movements. Others had their cases adjourned to allow for additional evidence gathering or legal representation. The court's decisions were communicated to all parties involved, and the next steps in the legal process were clearly outlined. These orders ensured that the judicial process continued efficiently and that the rights of all individuals involved were protected.
The court was tasked with resolving several legal issues pertinent to the defendants' cases. These included assessing the merits of bail applications, determining the appropriate court processes for plea hearings, and directing the course of action for cases that required further evidence or legal argument. For instance, in the matter of Nicholas Aaron Scott and Lisa Lyn Harwood, the court had to consider the risk factors associated with granting bail and whether the defendants would comply with any bail conditions. Similarly, for Allan John Duffy and others, the court needed to decide on the procedural fairness and efficiency in managing ongoing criminal proceedings.
Chief Justice Blow, alongside other justices, evaluated the evidence and submissions presented by the defence and prosecution. The court considered the nature of the charges, the defendants' criminal history, and the potential impact on the community if bail were to be granted. In the end, the court rendered decisions that balanced the rights of the accused with the need for public safety. The outcome varied for each defendant, with some being granted bail under specific conditions, while others had their cases adjourned for further investigation or trial. The court's decisions were made in accordance with statutory guidelines and judicial discretion, ensuring a fair and thorough examination of each case.
The final orders issued by the court reflected the outcomes of the hearings. For some defendants, the court set bail conditions that included regular check-ins with parole officers and restrictions on their movements. Others had their cases adjourned to allow for additional evidence gathering or legal representation. The court's decisions were communicated to all parties involved, and the next steps in the legal process were clearly outlined. These orders ensured that the judicial process continued efficiently and that the rights of all individuals involved were protected.
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.