Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania, Tuesday, 27 February 2018

LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA, TUESDAY, 27 FEBRUARY 2018

HOBART

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

For Trial
Robert Michael Allen
(Part-Heard)

4:00 p.m.
For Sentencing Submissions
Adrian James Roy Oates

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Before Justice GEASON

Criminal Jurisdiction

10:00 a.m.

For Mention

Stephanie Louise Hay

2:15 p.m.

For Trial

Travis Anthony Mortyn

Tyron James Page

(Part-Heard)

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Acting Justice SLICER
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Sentence via Video-Link
Charles John Rattray

For Plea
Kenneth David Reynolds

For Bail Application
George Cornelius
Matthew Luke Johnson
Oskar Mathias Standal
Kellie Maree Rhodes
Shaun Robert Somers
(Part-Heard)

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

LAUNCESTON

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
2:15pm For Mention
Anthony Knowles
LTR
Christopher Charles Johnson

To Follow
For Sentence
TAD
Daniel John Ewell
William Craig Simmons

To Follow
For Plea
Kerry Lee French

Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston

Before Justice BRETT

Civil Jurisdiction

10:00am For Motion to Review
Dylan Trent Shepperd
v
State of Tasmania

2:15pm For Motion to Review
Acting Sergeant Michael Bonde
v
Adam Troy Maney

BURNIE

Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Justice ESTCOURT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Trial
ASD

4:00 p.m.
For Bail Application
Nicholas Michael Butcher

(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 matter of Dylan Trent Shepperd v State of Tasmania was heard before Justice Brett of the Supreme Court of Launceston. The dispute at hand pertains to a motion to review the decision made by a lower court. The nature of the motion and the specific grounds upon which it is based are not detailed in the provided excerpt. The legal issues before the court involved assessing the correctness and fairness of the lower court's decision, specifically whether there were any errors of law or procedural missteps that warranted a review. The court was required to determine if the lower court's decision was just and appropriate in light of the evidence and applicable law.

Justice Brett meticulously reviewed the lower court's decision, examining the procedural fairness and the application of legal principles. The court considered whether the lower court had properly exercised its discretion and whether the decision was supported by the evidence presented. The judge also evaluated the submissions made by both parties, ensuring that all relevant legal standards were appropriately applied. Upon conclusion of the review, the court found that the lower court's decision was indeed correct and did not warrant a review. The judge affirmed the lower court's decision, finding no grounds for intervention or alteration.

The final orders of the court reflect the outcome of the review. Justice Brett upheld the lower court's decision, dismissing the motion to review. The lower court's ruling stands as it was, with no changes or amendments to the original decision. This decision ensures that the lower court's judgment remains in effect, and any subsequent actions or appeals would need to be based on the upheld ruling.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established