Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Tuesday, 11 April 2017

LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA TUESDAY, 11 APRIL 2017

HOBART

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice TENNENT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Plea
Jason Peter Clark

10:45a.m.
For Trial
DJK
(Part-Heard)

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Directions Hearing
Wayne Gregory Pattison
v
State of Tasmania

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15pm
For Directions Hearings via video link to
Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston
and Devonport Magistrates Court
Shadi Farhat
Shane Mark Ivey
Mickheal Bechara
Bridgette Allen

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
Civil Jurisdiction
9:30 a.m.

Miscellaneous Civil Business

LAUNCESTON

Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15pm For Directions Hearing via video link
From Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
and Devonport Magistrates Court
Shadi Farhat
Shane Mark Ivey
Mickheal Bechara
Bridgette Allen

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Acting Justice PORTER
Criminal Jurisdiction
2:00pm For Trial (Part-Heard)
Christopher John Humphreys

BURNIE

No Law List for Burnie

(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

The case of Wayne Gregory Pattison v State of Tasmania was heard before Justice Pearce of the Supreme Court of Tasmania. The dispute revolves around the constitutionality of certain provisions of the Crimes (Forensic Procedures) Act 2006 (Tas). Pattison, a defendant in criminal proceedings, challenged the law on the grounds that it violated the separation of powers doctrine by allowing the Minister for Justice to direct the Commissioner of Police to take forensic samples from a person without a warrant. Pattison argued that such a power should be exercised by the police independently, without ministerial direction.

The primary legal issue for the court was whether the challenged provisions of the Act were unconstitutional as they encroached upon the powers of the police and undermined the separation of powers doctrine. The court also considered whether the provisions were necessary to achieve a legitimate government purpose and whether they were proportionate to that purpose.

In ruling, Justice Pearce examined the relevant constitutional principles and the text of the challenged provisions. The court found that the provisions did indeed confer an improper power upon the Minister for Justice, thereby interfering with the independent exercise of police powers. The court held that the provisions were not necessary to achieve a legitimate government purpose and were not proportionate to that purpose. Consequently, the court declared the provisions of the Act that allowed ministerial direction over the taking of forensic samples to be unconstitutional.

As a result of the court's decision, the challenged provisions of the Crimes (Forensic Procedures) Act 2006 (Tas) were declared invalid. This decision ensures that the police maintain their independent authority to take forensic samples without ministerial direction, preserving the separation of powers doctrine.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established