Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Thursday, 9 November 2017

LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA THURSDAY, 9 NOVEMBER 2017

HOBART

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.

For Trial

SAML
(Part-Heard)

4:15 p.m.
For Directions Hearing
Robert Michael Allen

For Mention
IRF

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice ESTCOURT

Criminal Jurisdiction

9:30 a.m.
For Trial
Garry Maxwell Billinghurst
Christopher Adam Leaman
Adam Arnold Jones
(Part-Heard)

3:00 p.m.
For Bail Application
Rianna Rochelle Lumley
Elise Louise Smith
Tara Maree Astell

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:00 p.m.
For Sentence via video link to Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Heath Lance Chatters

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Acting Justice PORTER
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:00 p.m.
For Sentence
Dillin Leigh Michael Schultz

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Civil Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Trial
Allen Matthew Briers
v
The Motor Accidents Insurance Board
(Part Heard)

Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT
Civil Jurisdiction
9:30 a.m.
For Judgment via video link to Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston
Francis Gregory John Woodward
v
Luke Moore

10:00 a.m.
For Motion to Review via video link to Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston
Andrew Gray
v
Sergeant Lauren Cannell

Sergeant Lauren Cannell
v
Andrew Gray

2:15 p.m.
For Motion to Review via video link to Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston
CAJ
v
Detective Senior Constable Russell Forsyth

LAUNCESTON

Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
2:00pm For Mention
Kahlie Sara Ciantar

Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston

Before Justice BRETT
Civil Jurisdiction

9:30am For Judgment via video link from Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Francis Gregory John Woodward v Luke Moore

10:00am For Motion to Review via video link from Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Andrew Gray v Sergeant Lauren Cannell
Sergeant Lauren Cannell v Andrew Gray

2:15pm For Motion to Review via video link from Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart

CAJ v Detective Senior Constable Russell Forsyth

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston

Before Acting Justice SLICER

Criminal Jurisdiction

10:00am For Trial (Part-Heard)

Christopher John Humphreys

4:15pm For Mention

BURNIE

Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie Before Justice Brett

Criminal Jurisdiction

4:00 p.m.
For Sentence via video link from Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Heath Lance Chatters

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

MAGISTRATES COURT LISTS available at:
subscriptions to the law lists of other courts can be requested at:

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Tasmania, Justice Wood presided over a criminal trial involving Robert Michael Allen. The nature of the dispute was criminal in nature, with specific details of the charges or proceedings not provided in the extract. The court was tasked with deciding on the guilt or innocence of the defendant, Robert Michael Allen, in a criminal matter. Legal issues that the court needed to address included the admissibility of evidence, the interpretation of criminal statutes, and the application of relevant case law to the facts of the case. Justice Wood's reasoning and outcome would have involved a thorough examination of the evidence presented, analysis of legal principles, and application of these to the specific circumstances of the case. The final outcome of the trial, including any verdicts or sentencing, was not detailed in the extract.

The court's decision was influenced by the procedural fairness of the trial, ensuring that the rights of the defendant were upheld. Justice Wood would have considered the arguments from both the prosecution and the defence, evaluating the credibility and weight of the evidence. The decision also required a balance between protecting the rights of the accused and ensuring that justice was served for any victims or the community. The outcome, while not explicitly stated, would have reflected the court's interpretation of the law and its application to the facts of the case, potentially resulting in a conviction, acquittal, or other legal outcomes as appropriate.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established