LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA MONDAY, 31 OCTOBER 2016
HOBART
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15 p.m.
For Application
Sean Grant Gleeson
Court 7, Salamanca Place
Before Justice ESTCOURT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Bail Application
Brodie Self
(Part Heard)
For Bail Consent
Lucas William Gatehouse
Hock Leong Chia
Kaylene Margaret Smith
For Mention
A Witness
For Trial
Aleasha Berenice Sims
Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Mention
Jamie Leigh Feil
For Bail Consent
Aaron William Nash Spong
For Trial
Alexander Gordon Calvert
4:15 p.m.
For Mention
MG
LAUNCESTON
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice TENNENT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am For Mention via Video-Link
Corey Mitchell Gesler
Christopher John Humphreys
To Follow
For Mention
Conniey Rea-Riley
To Follow
For Bail Consent
PDW
To Follow
For Legal Argument
JWM
Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Civil Jurisdiction
10:00am For Trial
Timothy John Moore v Graham Leslie George
(Personally and in his capacity as
Executor of the Estate of Karlene Gweneth George (Deceased))
BURNIE
No Law List for Burnie
(Note: Initials are used where publication of a person's name is not permitted by law.)
MAGISTRATES COURT LISTS available at:
Email subscriptions to the law lists of other courts can be requested at:
- AGLC
- Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Monday, 31 October 2016 [2016] TASSCCourtlist 235
- Case
- [2016] TASSCCourtlist 235
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues presented to the court included determining whether bail should be granted or refused for the applicants, the scheduling and management of ongoing criminal cases, and the resolution of the civil dispute between the parties. The court was tasked with assessing the evidence and arguments presented in each matter to make informed decisions about the next steps in the legal process. This involved considering factors such as the likelihood of the accused appearing in court, the risk of reoffending, and the impact on the community.
The court's reasoning and outcomes were not detailed in the provided excerpt, but it is understood that the judges would have considered the specific circumstances of each case, applying relevant legal principles and statutes. Decisions on bail applications would have been based on the balance of convenience test, weighing the interests of the community against the rights of the accused. The outcome of the civil case would have been determined by the merits of the arguments and the evidence presented by both parties.
No final orders were mentioned in the provided excerpt, but it is expected that the court would have made decisions on each matter heard, providing directions for the next steps in the legal process for each case.
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.