Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Thursday, 30 September 2021hobart Summary

LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA THURSDAY, 30 SEPTEMBER 2021

HOBART

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before the FULL COURT
10:00a.m.
For Hearing
Shane Alasi-Jones
v
The State of Tasmania (Department of Health)

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
2:15p.m.
For Bail Application
David George Evans
Private Witness Room, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:30am
For Directions Hearing via video-link from Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Simon Cole Wigg

Civil Jurisdiction
2:15pm
For Hearing via video-link from Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Senior Sergeant Russell Judges
v
Leon Ivan Stephenson

Criminal Jurisdiction
2:15pm
For Sentencing Submissions via video-link from Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
JAR

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction

3:45pm
For Sentencing Submissions
Wayne Vonk

4.00pm
For Legal Argument via video-link to PWR Alexander Street, Burnie,
and to Risdon Prison Complex
MJD

For Directions Hearing via video-link to Risdon Prison Complex
Jason Clifford Gordon
Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice GEASON
Criminal Jurisdiction

9.30am
For bail application by video-link to Launceston PWR
Tyrell Bailey

For bail application
Letisha Bramich
Brent Michael White
Andrew Reeve

10am
For directions hearing by telephone
Corey Douglas Lovell

For application to vary bail (part-heard)
Corey Adam Lockwood

For bail application (part-heard)
Brody Lincoln French

12 noon
For bail application (part-heard)
Samuel David Pennicott

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
9:15a.m. via MS Teams
For Directions Hearing
Robert Svend Jensen v Anstie Constructions Pty Ltd

For Directions Hearing
Dale John Stacey v Narelle Ann Stacey

For Directions Hearing
Elders Council of Tasmania Aboriginal Corporation v Robin West and anor

For Mention
Phillip Anthony Redmond v Director of Housing

9:30a.m. via MS Teams
For Possession
Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Terry Allan Carter

Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited v Steven Paul McKenna

LAUNCESTON

NO LAW LIST FOR LAUNCESTON

BURNIE

Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:30am
For Directions Hearing via video-link to Hobart PWR, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Simon Cole Wigg

Civil Jurisdiction
2:15pm
For Hearing via video-link to Hobart PWR, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Senior Sergeant Russell Judges
v
Leon Ivan Stephenson

Criminal Jurisdiction
2:15pm
For Sentencing Submissions via video-link to Hobart PWR, Salamanca Place, Hobart
JAR

PWR, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
4.00pm
For Legal Argument via video-link from Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart,
and to Risdon Prison Complex
MJD

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Shane Alasi-Jones v The State of Tasmania (Department of Health) was heard by the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Tasmania. The dispute centred on issues relating to the defendant's mental health and the adequacy of the health services provided to him by the State. The court was tasked with determining whether the Department of Health had met its obligations under the Mental Health Act and if the defendant's rights were adequately protected.

The legal issues before the court included the interpretation and application of the Mental Health Act, the standard of care required by health professionals, and the defendant's right to be treated with dignity and respect. The court also had to consider the balance between the defendant's right to liberty and the need to protect the public from potential harm. Furthermore, the court assessed whether the Department of Health had fulfilled its duty of care towards the defendant and if the treatment provided was appropriate and in line with best practices.

In its reasoning, the court examined the evidence presented by both parties, including expert testimonies and medical records. The court found that while the Department of Health had made efforts to provide adequate care, there were shortcomings in the treatment plan and the monitoring of the defendant's condition. The court concluded that the Department had not fully met its obligations under the Mental Health Act and that the defendant's rights had not been adequately protected. Consequently, the court ordered the Department of Health to review and revise the defendant's treatment plan and to ensure that all care provided was in line with the standards set forth by the Act.

The final orders of the court included directives for the Department of Health to implement the revised treatment plan within a specified timeframe, to provide regular updates on the defendant's condition, and to ensure that all staff involved in the defendant's care were adequately trained and aware of their responsibilities. The court also mandated that the Department conduct a comprehensive review of its procedures to prevent similar issues in the future.

Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Thursday, 30 September 2021hobart

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established