LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA THURSDAY, 24 JUNE 2021
HOBART
Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart Before Chief Justice BLOW Civil Jurisdiction 11:00a.m.For Judgment State of Tasmania (Department of Health)
v
Patricia Joy Stirling
For Hearing Harjot Singh Rai
v
Darren Leslie Beresford
Court 1, Salamanca Place, HobartBefore Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m
For Directions HearingJ S F
For Trial
Anthony Stephen Butcher
(Part-Heard)
2:15 p.m
For Bail Application
Brett Langdon Wescombe
4:15 p.m
For Directions Hearing via video-link
Damian Leslie Harper
C J R v State of Tasmania
For Sentencing Submissions via video-link
Ronald Athol Keating
Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice ESTCOURT
Criminal Jurisdiction
2:00 p.m.
For Mention
Justin Craig Cleaver
PWR, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice PEARCE Criminal Jurisdiction
12:30pm
For Bail Application via video link from
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Bradley John Holton-Crane
Court 8, Salamanca Place Hobart
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15pm
For Sentence via video link from Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie, to Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston and Mary Hutchins Women’s Prison
Amanda Maree McHugh
For Directions Hearing via video link from Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie and to Risdon Prison Complex
Heath Lance Chatters
Before Acting Justice PORTER
Civil Jurisdiction
10:00a.m.
For Hearing via video-link to Court 2,
Cameron Street, Launceston
Kent Andrew Brown v Sergeant Jason Jones
Criminal Jurisdiction
2:15p.m.
For Sentence via video-link to Risdon Prison Complex
and to Hobart Reception Prison
Kye John Edward Charles Louney
Derek Leslie Graeme Smith
Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
10:00a.m. For Hearing (Part Heard)
Moe Sultan v Aziz Gregory Melick and ors
LAUNCESTON
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am
For Trial
Ruhua Liu
Shayne Michael Murphy
(part-heard)
12:30pm
For Bail Application via video link to Risdon
Prison Complex and PWR, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Bradley John Holton-Crane
4:15pm
For Sentencing Submissions via video link to Risdon Prison Complex and PWR, Alexander Street, Burnie
MJP
For Bail Application
Michelle Hodge
Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15pm
For Sentence via video link from Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie,
to Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart and Mary Hutchins Women’s Prison
Amanda Maree McHugh
Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Acting Justice PORTER
Civil Jurisdiction
10:00a.m.
For Hearing via video-link from
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Kent Andrew Brown v Sergeant Jason Jones
BURNIE
PWR, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15pm
For Sentencing Submissions via video link from Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
MJP
Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am
For Mention
Tarran Leslie Woods
For Mention via video link to PWR, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Todd Michael Walker
For Trial
Thomas Leslie Rennison
(Part-heard)
4:15pm
For Sentence via video link to Court 8, Salamanca Place,
Hobart and Mary Hutchinson Women’s Prison
Amanda Maree McHugh
For Directions Hearing via video link to Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
and Risdon Prison Complex
Heath Lance Chatters
Details
- Case
- [2021] TASSCCourtlist 199
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case before the Supreme Court of Tasmania involved a dispute between the State of Tasmania, represented by the Department of Health, and Patricia Joy Stirling. The nature of the dispute was not detailed in the case list, but it was scheduled for judgment on 24 June 2021 in Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart, before Chief Justice Blow.
The legal issues the court needed to decide in this case are not specified in the provided text. Typically, in a case involving the Department of Health, the issues might pertain to public health regulations, administrative decisions, or health-related policies. The specifics of the dispute would be determined by the arguments and evidence presented by both parties during the hearing.
The court's reasoning and outcome were not provided in the text. In cases of this nature, the court would have considered the legal principles relevant to the dispute, such as statutory interpretation, administrative law, and possibly the common law principles governing health and safety. The Chief Justice would have reviewed the submissions, evidence, and applicable laws to render a decision. The outcome would have been communicated at the conclusion of the judgment session.
The final orders, if any, were not detailed in the provided text. Typically, in a case involving the Department of Health, the court's orders might include directions for compliance with health regulations, the enforcement of public health directives, or the imposition of penalties for non-compliance. The exact nature of the orders would depend on the specific findings and legal conclusions reached by the court.
The legal issues the court needed to decide in this case are not specified in the provided text. Typically, in a case involving the Department of Health, the issues might pertain to public health regulations, administrative decisions, or health-related policies. The specifics of the dispute would be determined by the arguments and evidence presented by both parties during the hearing.
The court's reasoning and outcome were not provided in the text. In cases of this nature, the court would have considered the legal principles relevant to the dispute, such as statutory interpretation, administrative law, and possibly the common law principles governing health and safety. The Chief Justice would have reviewed the submissions, evidence, and applicable laws to render a decision. The outcome would have been communicated at the conclusion of the judgment session.
The final orders, if any, were not detailed in the provided text. Typically, in a case involving the Department of Health, the court's orders might include directions for compliance with health regulations, the enforcement of public health directives, or the imposition of penalties for non-compliance. The exact nature of the orders would depend on the specific findings and legal conclusions reached by the court.
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.