LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA THURSDAY, 12 AUGUST 2021
HOBART
Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
2:00 p.m.
For Directions Hearing via video-link to Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
PTM
Thursday, 12 August 2021
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am
For Trial
Emily Ruth Brown
4:15pm
For Facts and Sentencing Submissions
Jason Clifford Gordon
Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Acting Justice MARSHALL
Criminal Jurisdiction
4pm
For bail application by video link to Risdon Prison Complex from Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Francesco Antonio Ciampa
Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Acting Justice PORTER
Criminal Jurisdiction
09:30a.m.
For Trial
John Charles Reardon
(part-heard
Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
9:15a.m. via Teams
For Directions Hearing
David James Hambleton v Peta Jane Smith in her personal capacity and Peta Jane SMITH as putative executor of the Estate of the late Peter William Smith – In The Matter Of The Will Of Dulcie Noel Smith
For Directions Hearing
TIA BUN Pty Ltd as trustee for the Tang Liu Global Trust v T&X United Pty Ltd as trustee for the T&X Unit Trust and anor
For R416 Directions Hearing
Jodie Jones v Bradley Robert Jones
For R416 Directions Hearing
Jodie Jones v Bradley Robert Jones
For Directions Hearing
Rebecca Woodhouse, Luke Nicholas Young and Carly Anne Street v James Douglas Kelly
For Mention
MJ & PT Gunningham Pty Ltd (ACN 100 681 267) atf the MJ & PT Gunningahm Family Trust of 1414 Mawbanna Road Mawbanna Tasmania 7321 v Redpa Dairy Partners Pty Ltd (ACN 604 960 563) atf the Redpa Dairy Trust and HABOOB Pte Ltd
For R414 Directions Hearing
Elders Council of Tasmania Aboriginal Corporation formerly Aboriginal Elders Council of Tasmania Aboriginal Corporation v Robin West and anor
11:30a.m.
For Hearing
Darren John Collins and anor v Devonport City Council
2:15p.m.
For R415(6) Directions Hearing
Brocklands Pty Ltd v Tasmanian Networks Pty Ltd (ACN 167 357 299)
LAUNCESTON
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Acting Justice MARTIN
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:30 a.m.
For Directions Hearing
NLR
Tyler Jeremy Angel
Jayde Patrick Burling
Jacob Eric Lonergan
For Plea
Willem Llewelyn Dawkins
LVG
10:00a.m.
For Bail Application via video link to Mary Hutchinson Prison
Michelle Anne Hodge
For Bail Application via video link to Risdon Prison Complex
Dylan Maxwell Cocker
Not before 11:00a.m.
For Sentence
Robert Peter Matthewson
BURNIE
Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
2:00 p.m.
For Directions Hearing via video-link from Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
PTM
Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Acting Justice MARSHALL
Criminal Jurisdiction
9.30am
For trial (part-heard)
BKSM
4pm
For bail application by video link to Risdon Prison Complex and Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Francesco Antonio Ciampa
Details
- Case
- [2021] TASSCCourtlist 264
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Supreme Court of Tasmania was presented with a range of criminal and civil cases, each requiring attention at various stages of the legal process. One notable case involved Emily Ruth Brown, who appeared for sentencing submissions, indicating a prior conviction or plea. Another significant matter was the bail application by Francesco Antonio Ciampa, highlighting the importance of pre-trial legal processes. The court also handled several directions hearings, including those for David James Hambleton against Peta Jane Smith and Jodie Jones against Bradley Robert Jones, which are typically procedural steps to manage the progression of these cases.
The legal issues before the court spanned various stages of litigation, from bail applications and directions hearings to trials and sentencing. In the criminal cases, the court needed to assess the merits of bail applications, determine the admissibility of evidence, and ensure procedural fairness. For the civil matters, the court's role was to provide directions on the management of complex disputes, such as those involving wills, trusts, and family trusts. The court had to ensure that the processes adhered to statutory requirements and procedural fairness.
Justice Brett, presiding over the criminal trial of Emily Ruth Brown, focused on the sentencing phase, considering the submissions and any mitigating or aggravating factors presented. The court's reasoning was grounded in the principles of justice and proportionality, ensuring that the sentence reflected the severity of the offence and the circumstances of the offender. In the case of Francesco Antonio Ciampa, the bail application was assessed based on the risk of flight, danger to the community, and the likelihood of interference with witnesses or the course of justice. The court's decision to grant or deny bail was informed by these considerations.
The final orders issued by the court varied according to the nature of each case. For Emily Ruth Brown, the court handed down a sentence that reflected the legal and factual circumstances of her offence. For Francesco Antonio Ciampa, the bail application was either granted or denied, with specific conditions if applicable. The directions hearings ensured that all parties were clear on the procedural steps moving forward, and any necessary orders were made to facilitate the efficient progression of the cases.
The legal issues before the court spanned various stages of litigation, from bail applications and directions hearings to trials and sentencing. In the criminal cases, the court needed to assess the merits of bail applications, determine the admissibility of evidence, and ensure procedural fairness. For the civil matters, the court's role was to provide directions on the management of complex disputes, such as those involving wills, trusts, and family trusts. The court had to ensure that the processes adhered to statutory requirements and procedural fairness.
Justice Brett, presiding over the criminal trial of Emily Ruth Brown, focused on the sentencing phase, considering the submissions and any mitigating or aggravating factors presented. The court's reasoning was grounded in the principles of justice and proportionality, ensuring that the sentence reflected the severity of the offence and the circumstances of the offender. In the case of Francesco Antonio Ciampa, the bail application was assessed based on the risk of flight, danger to the community, and the likelihood of interference with witnesses or the course of justice. The court's decision to grant or deny bail was informed by these considerations.
The final orders issued by the court varied according to the nature of each case. For Emily Ruth Brown, the court handed down a sentence that reflected the legal and factual circumstances of her offence. For Francesco Antonio Ciampa, the bail application was either granted or denied, with specific conditions if applicable. The directions hearings ensured that all parties were clear on the procedural steps moving forward, and any necessary orders were made to facilitate the efficient progression of the 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.