Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania, Thursday, 21 November 2019

LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA, THURSDAY, 21 NOVEMBER 2019

HOBART

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00a.m.
For Sentencing Submissions
Kim Maree Maple

In Chambers
Civil Jurisdiction
3:30 p.m.
For Judgment via Telephone
QRS v The Law Society of Tasmania

Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Criminal Jurisdiction
Before Justice WOOD
10:00 a.m.
For Directions Hearing via video-link
to Court 2, Launceston
Mark Rodney Jones
v
The State of Tasmania

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:30a.m.
For Trial (part-heard)
JAGD

10:00a.m.
For Mention
Dean Phillip Braslin

For Bail Consent
Terrence James Burn
Ned Phillip Lang

4:15p.m.
For Directions Hearing
Xinyi Li
Xin Wang
Daniel Robert Knowles

For Bail Consent
Rebecca Jayne Eirth

For Directions Hearing via video link
VKP

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Acting Justice PORTER
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Trial
RUB
(Part-Heard)

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart via video link to
Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Associate Justice HOLT
9.15 am
Legal Profession Board of Tasmania v FWL
Directions hearing

Shaun Gaye v Director of Housing
Directions hearing

9.30 am
Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Shannon Joshua Brown
Possession

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT

2.15 pm
Susan Maree Cochrane ATF Bungaree Trust and
Allan Titford as trustee of the estate of the Bungaree Trust
v Dieter Helbig and Stephen Helbig
Leave to proceed/Summary judgment

LAUNCESTON

Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston
Criminal Jurisdiction
Before Justice WOOD
10.00a.m.
For Directions Hearing via video-link
from Court 2, Hobart
Mark Rodney Jones
v
The State of Tasmania

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00a.m.
For Trial
DJB

(Part-heard)

4:15p.m.
For Bail Application
Hasley James Maynard

BURNIE

Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Justice GEASON
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Witness on Final Notice
David Allan Williams

For Mention
Alanya Joy White
Quentin Kevin Bob Osborne

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Tasmania, a case was heard between QRS and The Law Society of Tasmania. The case concerned a dispute regarding professional misconduct and the appropriate disciplinary action to be taken against a legal practitioner. The matter was presided over by Justice Wood. The central legal issues revolved around the interpretation of the Legal Profession Act and the applicable professional standards, as well as the extent to which the alleged misconduct warranted disciplinary action.

The court examined the evidence presented regarding the legal practitioner's conduct and whether it breached the professional standards outlined in the Legal Profession Act. Additionally, the court considered the appropriate disciplinary action to be imposed, if any, in light of the practitioner's history and the nature of the misconduct. The court weighed the principles of fairness, proportionality, and deterrence in reaching its decision.

In its judgment, the court found that the legal practitioner's conduct did indeed breach the professional standards and warranted disciplinary action. The court determined that a suspension from practice for a period of six months, along with the requirement for the practitioner to undergo professional development and counselling, was the most appropriate course of action. This decision aimed to protect the public, maintain the integrity of the legal profession, and provide an opportunity for the practitioner to reform their conduct.

The court ordered the suspension of the legal practitioner from practice for a period of six months, commencing from the date of the judgment. Additionally, the practitioner was required to attend professional development and counselling sessions as a condition of their reinstatement to practice.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established