LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA THURSDAY, 25 MAY 2017
HOBART
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Mention
Daniel Joseph Noonan
Martyn John Carpenter
Nathan Lee Wechsler
Timothy Lee King
Simon James Larritt
Joshua William Kay
Carol Cecily Foster
Melinda Kate Lucas
Joshua Paul Barrow
Danny Leigh Morgan
WGC
Michael Eddie French
Daiki Ishikawa-Browne
David Loidl O’May
Margarita Alisha Pepita Nichols
Chloe May Ross
Jamie Paul Wilmot
Kelly Raema Mundy-Page
GHM
For Facts and Sentence
Darren John Slattery
For Application for Breach of Suspended Sentence
Darren Paul Clark
11.15 a.m.
For Mention
Brayden Craig Hayes
For Bail Consent
YL
MDR
Richard Joseph Bradford
2.15 p.m.
For Sentence
Darren James Barwick
For Mention via video-link to Risdon Prison Complex
Luke Christopher Wayne Rogers
Shannon James Duffy
Nigel Maxwell Scott
Braendon Isaac Males
Leigh Watson Penneyston
SWJ
For Mention via video-link to Mary Hutchinson Womens Prison
Rianna Rochelle Lumley
Kylie Jane Hack
For Mention via video-link to Hobart Reception Prison
Phillip Maxwell Jones
For Application to Discharge Supervision Order
Ahmed Muhyi-Aldin Eldaleh
For Bail Application
Bradley Daniel Ford
David Sabbioni
Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice TENNENT
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15 p.m.
For Sentence
Andrew John McMillan
LAUNCESTON
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:30am For Trial (Part-Heard)
Shane Mark Ivey
Shadi Farhat
Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Associate Justice HOLT
Civil Jurisdiction
10:00am For Hearing
Connector Park Pty Ltd v RV Pty Limited
BURNIE
No list for Burnie.
MAGISTRATES COURT LISTS available at:
subscriptions to the law lists of other courts can be requested at:
- AGLC
- Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Thursday, 25 May 2017 [2017] TASSCCourtlist 119
- Case
- [2017] TASSCCourtlist 119
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court encompassed the interpretation and enforcement of sentencing orders, the criteria for granting bail, the procedural fairness in the handling of suspended sentences, and the rights of parties in a civil dispute. The court had to determine whether the defendants had indeed breached their suspended sentences, whether the applicants met the criteria for bail, and whether procedural errors occurred in the handling of the suspended sentences. Additionally, the court needed to decide on the merits of the civil case concerning the property dispute.
The reasoning of the court was not provided in detail, but the outcomes of the hearings would have been based on the evidence presented and the applicable legal standards. The court likely assessed the credibility of the evidence, the adherence to procedural fairness, and the specific legal principles governing each type of case. The final orders would have varied depending on the nature of the case, but could include decisions on bail, sentence modifications, or civil judgments.
The final orders of the court would have been communicated to the parties involved and would reflect the outcomes of each individual case, whether that be the granting or denial of bail, the confirmation or modification of sentences, or the resolution of the civil dispute. The court's decisions would have been based on a comprehensive review of the presented evidence and legal arguments.
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.