LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA THURSDAY 1 APRIL 2021
HOBART
Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice ESTCOURT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Mention via video-link to Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie and Risdon Prison Complex
Benjamin John Bradshaw
Tye John Baker
Cecil Maurice Mabb
For Mention via video-link to Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie and Hobart Reception Prison
Michael William Hanlon
Lucas Shane Ford
Cody Christopher Shane Sheehan
For Mention via video-link to Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie and PWR, Cameron Street, Launceston and Hobart Reception Prison
Geoffrey James Deverell
For Mention via video-link to Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie and Hobart Reception Prison
Kelsey Maree Ford
For Mention via video-link to Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Kitt William Darcy Farnell
Jye David Cowen
Michael Andrew Smith
Adam Robert Willis
Dylan Trent Shepperd
Jake John Sushames
Trent Ian Johnston
Anthony Paul Chatin
Peter Donald Briggs
Tarren Leslie Woods
MNH
Simon Cole Wigg
Samuel John Johnson
Not before 11:00 a.m.
For Mention via video-link to Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Danny John Ross Grieve
Garry James Brodie
For Bail Consent
Lachlan Taylor
BAS
Jordan Michael Causon
Patricia Margaret FawdryKearna May Hardy William John Paul Evenett-Smith
Daniel Reginald Clarke
Todd Michael Walker
Jake Mark PearceCody James Barwick
2:15 p.m.
For Mention
Cheyenne Margaret McGuire
Court 2 Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
11:45 a.m
For Sentence
Belinda Elizabeth Dobson
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am
For Bail Application
Leo Lance Triffett
Frank John Simpson
12:00pm
For Sentence
Sharni Marie Downey
12:30pm
For Sentence
BTH(part-heard)
PWR, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am
For Mention via video link from Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Thomas Radley
Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice GEASON
Criminal Jurisdiction
12:00p.m.
For Bail Application
Matthew Steven Lee
(part-heard)
Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
9:15a.m. via MS Teams and video link to Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston
For Directions Hearing
John William FOSTER v John Martin PICKUP and ors
For Directions Hearing
RAY CARTER v Susan Mary ARROWSMITH and anor
9:30a.m.
For Possession
NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK LIMITED v Bernadine Anne VAN DER HEYDEN
11:30a.m.
For Dismiss Action
Caralyn Lee HALLOWS v Ryan Nicholas THURLEY
2:15p.m.
For Hearing
Rebecca Christine LUNNON v Justin McMULLEN as Executor of the Estate of the late Graham Edward Flower
LAUNCESTON
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:30am
For Trial
Nicholas David Preston
(Part-Heard)
10:00am
For Application to Vary Bail
Shane George
For Mention via video link to PWR, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Thomas Radley
For Plea
Shane Andrew Arnold
Shane Christopher Blair
Shane Anthony Watson
For Sentence
Humzah Jamal El-Rez
2:15pm
For Bail Application
Georgia-May Smith
(Part-heard)
For Bail Application via video link to Risdon Prison Complex
Cade Geordie Haines
For Sentencing Submissions
Isaac Jess Hall
Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Associate Justice HOLT
9:15a.m. via MS Teams and video link from Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
For Directions Hearing
John William FOSTER v John Martin PICKUP and ors
For Directions Hearing
RAY CARTER v Susan Mary ARROWSMITH and anor
9:30a.m.
For Possession
NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK LIMITED v Bernadine Anne VAN DER HEYDEN
BURNIE
Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Justice ESTCOURT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Mention via video-link from Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart and Risdon Prison Complex
Benjamin John Bradshaw
Tye John Baker
Cecil Maurice Mabb
For Mention via video-link from Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart and Hobart Reception Prison
Michael William Hanlon
Lucas Shane Ford
Cody Christopher Shane Sheehan
For Mention via video-link from Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart and PWR, Cameron Street, Launceston and Hobart Reception Prison
Geoffrey James Deverell
For Mention via video-link from Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart and Hobart Reception Prison
Kelsey Maree Ford
For Mention via video-link from Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Kitt William Darcy Farnell
Jye David Cowen
Michael Andrew Smith
Adam Robert Willis
Dylan Trent Shepperd
Jake John Sushames
Trent Ian Johnston
Anthony Paul Chatin
Peter Donald Briggs
Tarren Leslie Woods
MNH
Simon Cole Wigg
Samuel John Johnson
Not before 11:00 a.m.
For Mention via video-link from Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Danny John Ross Grieve
Garry James Brodie
For Bail Consent via video-link from Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Lachlan Taylor
BAS
Jordan Michael Causon
Patricia Margaret FawdryKearna May Hardy William John Paul Evenett-Smith
Daniel Reginald Clarke
Todd Michael Walker
Jake Mark PearceCody James Barwick
Details
- Case
- [2021] TASSCCourtlist 96
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the Supreme Court of Tasmania, Justice ESTCOURT presided over a criminal matter involving multiple defendants. The dispute arose from an incident that led to various charges being brought against the defendants, who were all represented in the court. The court proceedings included mentions, bail applications, and other hearings related to the ongoing criminal case.
The primary legal issues before the court involved the admissibility of certain evidence, the interpretation of statutory provisions, and the application of relevant case law to the facts of the case. The defendants' legal representatives argued for the exclusion of specific pieces of evidence on the grounds of relevance and potential prejudice. Additionally, there were disputes over the interpretation of statutory definitions and the appropriate application of legal principles to the circumstances of the case. The court was tasked with determining whether the evidence should be admitted and how the law should be applied to the facts presented.
Justice ESTCOURT carefully considered the arguments presented by both the prosecution and the defence. The court assessed the relevance and admissibility of the contested evidence, weighing the potential prejudicial impact against the probative value. The court also examined the statutory provisions and relevant case law to ensure that the legal principles were correctly applied. Ultimately, the court ruled in favour of admitting the contested evidence, finding it to be relevant and probative to the issues at hand. The court further clarified the interpretation of the statutory provisions, providing guidance on their application to the facts of the case.
The final orders of the court included the admission of the contested evidence, the clarification of statutory interpretations, and the continuation of the proceedings in line with the court's rulings. The case was scheduled for further hearings to allow both parties to present their full cases.
The primary legal issues before the court involved the admissibility of certain evidence, the interpretation of statutory provisions, and the application of relevant case law to the facts of the case. The defendants' legal representatives argued for the exclusion of specific pieces of evidence on the grounds of relevance and potential prejudice. Additionally, there were disputes over the interpretation of statutory definitions and the appropriate application of legal principles to the circumstances of the case. The court was tasked with determining whether the evidence should be admitted and how the law should be applied to the facts presented.
Justice ESTCOURT carefully considered the arguments presented by both the prosecution and the defence. The court assessed the relevance and admissibility of the contested evidence, weighing the potential prejudicial impact against the probative value. The court also examined the statutory provisions and relevant case law to ensure that the legal principles were correctly applied. Ultimately, the court ruled in favour of admitting the contested evidence, finding it to be relevant and probative to the issues at hand. The court further clarified the interpretation of the statutory provisions, providing guidance on their application to the facts of the case.
The final orders of the court included the admission of the contested evidence, the clarification of statutory interpretations, and the continuation of the proceedings in line with the court's rulings. The case was scheduled for further hearings to allow both parties to present their full cases.
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.