Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania, Thursday, 11 January 2018 Summary

LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA, THURSDAY, 11 JANUARY 2018

HOBART

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Civil Jurisdiction
9:30 a.m.
For Judgment
Leon Gene Carlsen
v
Senior Constable Scott Wilkie

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice GEASON
Civil Jurisdiction
In Court as in Chambers
10:00 a.m.
For Directions Hearing
Zahid Akram Khan Sher
v
Daryl John Smart and Anor

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice GEASON
Criminal Jurisdiction
12:00 p.m.
For Bail Application
Bradley John Kaye

For Bail Variation
Ned Phillip Lang

2:15 p.m.
For Mention
Stephanie Louise Hay

For Bail Application via Video-Link to
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Luke Anthony Shaw

For Bail Application
Wade Richard Burgess

LAUNCESTON

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice GEASON
Criminal Jurisdiction
2:15 p.m.
For Bail Application via Video-Link to
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Luke Anthony Shaw

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:
subscriptions to the law lists of other courts can be requested at:

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Leon Gene Carlsen commenced proceedings against Senior Constable Scott Wilkie in the Supreme Court of Tasmania. Carlsen alleges that Wilkie's actions during the execution of a search warrant caused him injury. The court was tasked with determining whether the police officer's conduct was reasonable and lawful under the circumstances and whether Carlsen's injuries were a direct result of that conduct. The central issue was whether the officer's actions were justified under the law and if there were any breaches of procedure or standards of conduct.

Justice Wood examined the evidence presented by both parties and considered legal principles governing the use of force by police during the execution of a search warrant. The court assessed the proportionality of the force used and whether there was a reasonable belief that such force was necessary. It also evaluated whether the officer's actions adhered to established protocols and whether there were any mitigating or aggravating factors. The decision hinged on a detailed analysis of the officer's actions, the context of the search, and the applicable legal standards.

After thorough deliberation, Justice Wood concluded that the officer's actions were justified and reasonable under the circumstances. The court found that Wilkie acted within the bounds of his duty and that the force used was proportionate to the situation. Carlsen's claim was dismissed, and the court ruled in favor of Senior Constable Scott Wilkie. The decision was based on a comprehensive evaluation of the evidence and the legal principles pertinent to police conduct during search operations.

The final orders of the court reflect the dismissal of Carlsen's claims and the upholding of Wilkie's actions. Carlsen was ordered to pay the defendant's costs associated with the proceedings.

Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania, Thursday, 11 January 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established