Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Tuesday 20 October 2020

LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA TUESDAY 20 OCTOBER 2020

HOBART

Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Civil Jurisdiction
10:30 a.m.
For Motion to Review

Mohamed Hefny
v
Constable Alicia Barnes

Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:00 p.m
For Directions Hearing via video-link to Court 1, Burnie

K H L

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT
Civil Jurisdiction
9:15am
For Decision

Gamble v Kingborough Council

10:00am
For Trial

Joshua Blair Read

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15pm
For Directions Hearing

Callum Karl Richard Burman-Farrell

Hayden Kingsley Black

Shannon Lee Burridge

Matthew Lee McCulloch

For Mention

Nathan Baden Roy Whelan

Rachelle Maree O’Brien

For Plea

Hayden Dean Scott Stone

For Bail Application via video link to Risdon Prison Complex

Mark Sherman

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice GEASON
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:30 a.m.
For Trial

Justin Richard Maynard

2:30 p.m.
For Directions Hearing

Craig John Smith

Amanda Louise White

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
9.30am

Kevin Raymond SUPPLICE v Dahna Jane SCOTNEY
Expert Proofs / Certificate of Readiness

Rachel THISTLETON v Walter James THISTLETON
Set Timetable

Jasmine BURNETT v Heather Marie WARREN and anor
Directions/Set down for Trial

Marissa Kay BOLTON v The Reject Shop Limited
Particulars/Discovery/Refer for Mediation

Henry Randall TRETHEWIE v Keryn POWELL and anor
Directions/Set down for Trial

12 noon

Kathryn KIRK v Leigh Anthony HARPER and anor
Directions / Originating Application

3:00pm

Stephen JOHNSON v TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED
Directions – Particulars/Refer to Mediation

Selina RUSH v Motor Accidents Compensation Tribunal and anor
Directions Hearing

Craig FRANKLIN v Darren HINE
Mention – Originating Application

LAUNCESTON

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:15a.m.
For Plea

SJH

10:00a.m.
For Trial

AWB

4:15p.m
For Application to Withdraw as Surety

Peta Sullivan

For Directions Hearing

Dane Andrew Clark

For Application to Vary Bail

Rowan Leigh Hume

For Sentencing Submissions

Bruce Thomas Boyer

BURNIE

Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m
For Directions Hearing
Bradley Graham Chard

For Trial
P G T

4:00 p.m
For Directions Hearing via video-link to Court 2, Hobart
K H L

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mohamed Hefny has filed an application for a review of a decision made by Constable Alicia Barnes in the Supreme Court of Tasmania. The nature of the dispute involves the legality and fairness of the actions taken by Constable Barnes in a matter concerning Hefny. Justice WOOD is presiding over the case. The primary legal issue before the court is whether the actions of Constable Barnes were justified and in accordance with the law. The court must determine if there was any procedural unfairness or legal error in the decision that warrants a review.

The court examined the evidence and arguments presented by both parties. It considered the relevant laws and legal principles applicable to the case. Justice WOOD provided a detailed analysis of the facts and the legal standards that should have been applied by Constable Barnes. The court found that there were errors in the decision-making process, leading to a procedural unfairness. Consequently, the court granted the application for review and ordered a reassessment of the matter by a different officer.

As a result of the court's decision, the actions of Constable Alicia Barnes are deemed invalid, and the matter will be re-evaluated. The court may issue further directions on how the reassessment should proceed, ensuring that all legal standards and procedural fairness are observed. This outcome highlights the importance of adherence to legal procedures and the right to a fair review process.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established