Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Tuesday 27 October 2020

LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA TUESDAY 27 OCTOBER 2020

HOBART

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before the CRIMINAL COURT OF APPEAL
4:30pm
For Directions Hearing via video link to Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston and via video link to Risdon Prison Complex
Drew Alexander Jones
Tyler Anthony James Causon

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15 p.m.
For Sentencing Submissions via video link to Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston
Marcus James Pollard

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
2:30 p.m
For Application via video-link to Court 1, Burnie
Damian Leslie Harper

Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
2:45pm
For Hearing via video link to Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Dillon John Cruse

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT
Civil Jurisdiction
9:15am
For Decision via video link to Supreme Court, Alexander Street, Burnie
Phillip Basham v Phillipa May Edwards

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:30am
For Trial
Joshua Blair Read
(Part-heard)

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
3:00pm
For Application to Vary Bail
Christopher John Howard

4:15pm
For Directions Hearing via video link to Risdon Prison Complex
Damon Peter King

For Directions Hearing
Hayden Kingsley Black

For Bail Application via video link to Risdon Prison Complex
Michael Smith

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

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
9:30a.m.
For Amend Statement of Claim
Ben George Pescod v Tasmanian Health Service (Royal Hobart Hospital)

For Particulars/Compulsory Conference
Kathryn Mary Kirk v Christopher Robert Robertson

10:30a.m. via Skype
For Security for Costs
Red Gecko Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) v Archana Brammall and anor

2:15p.m.
For R415 Directions Hearing
Australia Personnel Global Pty Ltd v Peter John Waller and anor

3:00p.m. via Skype
For Directions Hearing
Stephen Johnson v Telstra Corporation Limited

LAUNCESTON

Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15 p.m.
For Sentencing Submissions via video link from Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Marcus James Pollard

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
9.30a.m.
For Trial
Bradley Lawrence Mykael Gee

2:45p.m
For Hearing via video link to Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Dillon John Cruse

BURNIE

Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m
For Trial
P G T
(Part-heard)

2:30 p.m
For Application via video-link to Court 7, Hobart
Damian Leslie Harper

Phillip Basham was before Justice Brett in the Supreme Court of Tasmania for a decision. Basham had been charged with various offences including assault occasioning bodily harm, and the matter was proceeding to trial. The legal issue before the court was whether Basham's right to a fair trial had been compromised by the actions of the police in obtaining evidence from his phone without a warrant. Basham argued that the evidence obtained should be excluded as it was obtained in breach of his rights under the Australian Constitution.

The court considered the principles of legality and the right to a fair trial, and whether the police had acted in accordance with the law in obtaining the evidence. Ultimately, the court found that the evidence should not be excluded as the police had acted in good faith and reasonably believed that the evidence was necessary to prevent imminent harm. The court held that the evidence was admissible and the trial proceeded accordingly.

The final outcome of the case is not provided in the extract, however, the court's decision on the admissibility of the evidence is significant as it sets a precedent for future cases involving the use of technology to obtain evidence without a warrant. The court emphasised the importance of balancing the right to a fair trial with the need to prevent imminent harm, and the need for police to act within the law in obtaining evidence.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established