Law Lists For The Supreme Court Of Tasmania Thursday, 11 February 2021 Summary

LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA THURSDAY, 11 FEBRUARY 2021

HOBART

Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15 p.m.
For Mention via video link to Court 2,
Cameron Street, Launceston
Director of Public Prosecutions
v
Timothy Edward Double

For Sentence via video link to Court 2,
Cameron Street, Launceston and PWR,
Alexander Street, Burnie
Joshua John Atkinson

In Chambers, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Civil Jurisdiction
4:45 p.m.
For Telephone Directions Hearing
Lorraine Elizabeth Jordan
v
Commissioner Frank Neasey, Criminal Injuries Compensation Commissioner

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice ESTCOURT
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:00 p.m.
For Bail Application
Tye Paul Silver

For Sentence
Jarod Lee Kringle
(Part-heard)

PWR, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15p.m
For Mention via video link from Court 1,
Cameron Street, Launceston and
PWR, Devonport Magistrates Court
Sean Danny Holmes

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15pm
For Directions Hearing via video link to X Prison
Dean Phillip Braslin v State of Tasmania

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Acting Justice PORTER
Criminal Jurisdiction
09:30a.m.
For Trial
Joshua Michael Murtagh
(part-heard)

10:00a.m.
For Witness on Final Notice

4:15p.m.
For Sentence via video-link to Risdon Prison Complex
Braydon Leigh Hopkinson

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
9:15am
For Directions Hearing
Valerie Ann Whittet v Diamando Tamblyn and the Public Trustee

For Interlocutory Application/Respondent’s Application
In the Matter of the Estate of the Late Robert Phillip Jones: Jodie Jones v Bradley Robert Jones

For Mention re Interlocutory Application
Helen Margaret Turner v Christian Neil Freeman

For Mention – Appeal/Interlocutory Application
Kurt Von Stalheim v Director of Housing

For Mention – Appeal
Mark Edward of the family house Hines v Tasmanian Water and Sewerage Corporation Pty Ltd Trading as Taswater

11.30am
For Tentative Listing
Susan Margaret Downie as personal representative of the late Patricia Gwendoline Sculthorpe v Anne Sculthorpe and Elizabeth Margaret Parker as personal representatives of the estate of the late Roger Donald Sculthorpe

2.15pm
For Amend Defence
Mures Fishing Pty Ltd v Patrick Gerrard Holloway and anor

LAUNCESTON

Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15 p.m.
For Mention via video link from Court 2,
Salamanca Place, Hobart
Director of Public Prosecutions
v
Timothy Edward Double

For Sentence via video link from Court 2,
Salamanca Place, Hobart
Joshua John Atkinson

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00a.m
For Directions Hearing
Heath Maxwell Lethborg

For Trial
Alan Rex Jones
(part-heard)

4:15p.m
For Mention via video link to PWR,
Devonport Magistrates Court and PWR,
Salamanca Place, Hobart
Sean Danny Holmes

BURNIE

PWR, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15 p.m.
For Sentence via video link from Court 2,
Salamanca Place, Hobart and Court 2,
Cameron Street, Launceston
Joshua John Atkinson

Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Justice GEASON
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Trial
ED

The case before the Supreme Court of Tasmania involved a hearing for sentence in relation to Joshua John Atkinson, with the proceedings being conducted via video link. Atkinson faced sentencing for an offence that was not explicitly detailed in the court listing. Atkinson was appearing before Chief Justice Blow, with the hearing taking place in the criminal jurisdiction of the court. The court was required to determine the appropriate penalty for Atkinson's offence, which would be based on the severity and circumstances of the crime committed, as well as any mitigating or aggravating factors presented.

In assessing the appropriate sentence, the court would have considered various legal principles and statutory guidelines. These include the principle of proportionality, which requires that the punishment fits the crime, and the objectives of sentencing which include punishment, deterrence, rehabilitation, and denunciation. The court would also have evaluated the submissions from both the prosecution and the defence, any victim impact statements, and any other relevant factors. The final sentence would need to be balanced with the rights of the offender and the interests of the community.

The outcome of the hearing was not detailed in the court listing, but the court's decision would have been documented in a subsequent judgment or order. The sentence imposed would have been in accordance with the legal framework governing criminal sentencing in Tasmania. The final orders would have included the specific penalty imposed on Atkinson, which could range from fines, community service, to imprisonment, depending on the nature and gravity of the offence.

Law Lists For The Supreme Court Of Tasmania Thursday, 11 February 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established