Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Tuesday, 16 February 2016

LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA TUESDAY, 16 FEBRUARY 2016

HOBART

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice TENNENT
Criminal Jurisdiction
12.00pm
For Plea
Jessica Evelyn May Brown
Raymond William Howard Till

2.15pm
For Legal Argument
Lawrence Bernard Sullivan
(Part-Heard)

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
2.15pm
For Facts and Plea in Mitigation

Nicholas Aaron Scott

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
Civil Jurisdiction
9.30am
Miscellaneous Civil Business

LAUNCESTON

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
10am For Disputed Facts Hearing (Part-Heard)
Brett Matthew Freeman

4.15pm For Sentence
Linda Lee Jones
Tiffany Louise Shaw

BURNIE

Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
10am

For Mention
Matthew James Coventry
Terrence Shane Mansfield

For Trial
Nicholas Mark Anderson

4pm
For Sentence
Marlon Castanares Laguador

For Facts and Sentence
Nigel John Griggs

For Plea

John Adam Streets

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

MAGISTRATES COURT LISTS available at:

Email subscriptions to the law lists of other courts can be requested at:

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Jessica Evelyn May Brown and Raymond William Howard Till was heard in the Supreme Court of Tasmania in Hobart. The pair were before Justice Tennent in Court 7 at Salamanca Place, Hobart. Their case was scheduled for a plea hearing at 12:00 pm. The nature of their dispute was criminal in nature, although the specifics of the charges were not detailed in the provided text.

The court was required to address the legal issues pertinent to their criminal case, which would likely include the interpretation of relevant criminal statutes, the admissibility of evidence, and the procedural fairness of the proceedings. Justice Tennent would have needed to ensure that the rights of the accused were upheld while also considering the interests of justice and the public. The outcome of the plea hearing would set the stage for any subsequent legal arguments or trials.

Justice Tennent presided over the plea hearing for Brown and Till. The court's reasoning and outcome were not detailed in the provided text, but typically, a plea hearing involves the defendants formally entering a plea of guilty or not guilty. If a guilty plea is entered, the court may proceed to sentencing. If not guilty, the case may go to trial. The final orders of the court would depend on the outcome of this hearing, including any directions for further proceedings, bail conditions, or immediate sentencing if a guilty plea was entered.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established