LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA, THURSDAY, 28 MAY 2020
HOBART
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Mention via video link
Craig John Smith
Adrian Alwyn Pickett
Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15 p.m.
For Sentence via telephone
DVM
In Chambers
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:30 p.m.
For Telephone Directions Hearing
Ian Anthony Martin
Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
2:15p.m.
For Bail Application
Jake Mark Pearce
Kye Louney
Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
10 am by telephone
Alan Bradley Jorgensen v Australian Securities and Investment Commission
Stay/Recusal/Costs applications
For hearing
LAUNCESTON
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00a.m.
For Mention via Video Link
Denim Faye O’Connor
JMF
For Plea via Video Link
WGCFor Plea
Sammual Clinton Wilmot
Matthew John Cameron
2:15p.m.
For Bail Application via Video Link
Luke Anthony Shaw
BURNIE
NO LAW LIST FOR BURNIE
Details
- Case
- [2020] TASSCCourtlist 588
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The matter of Craig John Smith versus the Crown was heard in the Supreme Court of Tasmania. The dispute centred on the defendant's challenge to the legality of his arrest and subsequent charges. The case was presided over by Chief Justice BLOW in a hearing held via video link. The primary legal issues that the court needed to address were whether the arrest was conducted lawfully and if the evidence obtained during the arrest should be excluded due to any procedural irregularities.
The court examined the circumstances of the arrest to determine if it was justified under the applicable laws. It was crucial to assess whether the police had reasonable grounds to believe that the defendant had committed an offence, and whether the methods used during the arrest complied with legal standards. The court also considered whether the evidence obtained from the arrest should be suppressed if there were any breaches in the legal process.
Chief Justice BLOW ruled that the arrest was conducted lawfully, as the police had reasonable grounds to suspect that the defendant was involved in criminal activity. The court found no procedural errors that would render the evidence inadmissible. Consequently, the charges against Craig John Smith were upheld. The final orders of the court included the dismissal of the defendant's challenge to the legality of his arrest and the confirmation of the pending charges against him.
The court examined the circumstances of the arrest to determine if it was justified under the applicable laws. It was crucial to assess whether the police had reasonable grounds to believe that the defendant had committed an offence, and whether the methods used during the arrest complied with legal standards. The court also considered whether the evidence obtained from the arrest should be suppressed if there were any breaches in the legal process.
Chief Justice BLOW ruled that the arrest was conducted lawfully, as the police had reasonable grounds to suspect that the defendant was involved in criminal activity. The court found no procedural errors that would render the evidence inadmissible. Consequently, the charges against Craig John Smith were upheld. The final orders of the court included the dismissal of the defendant's challenge to the legality of his arrest and the confirmation of the pending charges against him.
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.