Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Thursday, 24 November 2016 Summary

LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA THURSDAY, 24 NOVEMBER 2016

HOBART

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Bail Consent
TGW

For Bail Application
Zach James Muir-Bennett

For Trial
Wayne Gregory Pattison
(Part-Heard)

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice TENNENT
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:30 p.m.

For Directions Hearing via video-link

Susan Blyth Neill-Fraser

State of Tasmania

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Trial
Corey Graeme Farr
(Part-Heard)

LAUNCESTON

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston

Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am For Application to Vary Bail
Joseph Edward Auton

To Follow
In the Matter of an Application by SF

BURNIE

Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Justice Brett

Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.

For Bail Consent
Alanya Joy White

(Note: Initials are used where publication of a person's name is not permitted by law.)

MAGISTRATES COURT LISTS available at:

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

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Tasmania, Justice Tennent presided over the case of Susan Blyth Neill-Fraser versus the State of Tasmania, which was heard on 24 November 2016 in the Hobart Court. The primary issue before the court was a matter of criminal jurisdiction, focusing on the admissibility and weight of certain evidence. The case involved allegations against Neill-Fraser, with the state seeking to introduce specific evidence that the defendant contested on the grounds of relevance and reliability.

The court was required to determine whether the contested evidence met the legal criteria for admissibility and, if so, how much weight should be assigned to it in the trial. The admissibility hinged on the relevance of the evidence to the facts of the case and whether it could be reasonably relied upon by the court. The court also needed to consider any potential prejudice the evidence might cause to the defendant and whether the probative value outweighed any prejudicial impact.

Justice Tennent carefully examined the evidence in question and evaluated its relevance and reliability in light of the applicable legal standards. The court concluded that the contested evidence was admissible as it was pertinent to the facts of the case and could be reasonably relied upon. The weight given to this evidence was determined to be a matter for the jury, who would consider it alongside all other evidence presented during the trial. The court's decision ensured that the trial proceeded with all relevant and reliable evidence being available for consideration.

Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Thursday, 24 November 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established