LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA TUESDAY, 3 MARCH 2020
HOBART
Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:00 p.m.
For Bail Application
N F
4:30 p.m.
For Directions Hearing via video-link
Director of Public Prosecutions v Cody David Brown
B G M Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:15a.m.
For Mention via Video Link to Court 1,
Cameron Street, Launceston
Coen Stewart
Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice GEASON
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15 p.m.
For Sentence
Ahmed Ibrahim Ahmed
Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Acting Justice MARSHALL
Civil Jurisdiction
10:00am
For Trial
Marie Lynette Bukewitsch (by her litigation
guardian Troy Bukewitsch)
v Stanley Goodman
(Part-heard)
Court 3, Salamanca Place
Before Associate Justice HOLT
9.30 am
Martin Joseph Kent v Rebecca Sandra Reid
Directions / File Affidavits
Daniel Raymond Charles Ratcliffe v Teena Carol Bourne
Refer to Mediation
Ian Jones v David Fish
Mention – Question of Liability
In the Matter of the Testator’s Family Maintenance Act 1912 s 3
Sally Baily v Forbes Lunn, Cheryl Frances Voss, Cathy Barbara Griggs
Mention – Vacation of Trial Date
2:15 pm
Tasmanian Botanics Pty Ltd v Mark Richard De Vries
Directions Hearing
ACN 161 995 204 Pty Limited v Tasmanian Botanics Pty Ltd
Directions Hearing
Michael Christopher Stevens v Simtan Services Pty Ltd Trading
As Browns Plumbing Service
Non-Compliance – Set down for Trial/Expert Evidence
LAUNCESTON
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:15a.m.
For Mention via Video Link from
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Coen Stewart
BURNIE
Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Acting Justice PORTER
Civil Jurisdiction
10:00am
For Trial
Rita Stephanie Edwards v Stephanie Amy Crawford
(part-heard)
Details
- Case
- [2020] TASSCCourtlist 93
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case before the Supreme Court of Tasmania involved Cody David Brown, who was facing criminal charges. The proceedings took place in Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart, with Justice Wood presiding over the bail application and directions hearing. The legal issues before the court were the admissibility of evidence obtained during a search of Brown's residence and the application for bail. The court needed to determine whether the evidence was lawfully obtained and whether Brown was eligible for bail.
The court began by examining the legality of the search warrant and the circumstances under which the search was conducted. The prosecution argued that the warrant was properly issued and that the search was conducted in accordance with the law. The defence contended that the warrant was invalid and that the evidence obtained should be excluded. After reviewing the evidence and arguments presented by both parties, the court found that the search warrant was valid and that the evidence obtained was admissible.
The court then moved on to consider the bail application. The prosecution argued that Brown should not be granted bail due to the seriousness of the charges and the risk of reoffending. The defence submitted that Brown was not a flight risk and that there were compelling reasons for his release on bail. After weighing the evidence and arguments, the court concluded that Brown was eligible for bail and set the conditions for his release. The court ordered that Brown be released on bail subject to certain conditions, including a curfew, regular check-ins with a bail supervisor, and a prohibition on contacting certain individuals.
The court's decision provides important guidance on the admissibility of evidence obtained during a search and the factors that should be considered when deciding whether to grant bail. The ruling underscores the importance of ensuring that search warrants are properly issued and that evidence is obtained in accordance with the law. The court's decision also highlights the need to balance the interests of the accused with the need to protect the community when deciding whether to grant bail. The final orders of the court were that Cody David Brown be released on bail subject to certain conditions, including a curfew, regular check-ins with a bail supervisor, and a prohibition on contacting certain individuals.
The court began by examining the legality of the search warrant and the circumstances under which the search was conducted. The prosecution argued that the warrant was properly issued and that the search was conducted in accordance with the law. The defence contended that the warrant was invalid and that the evidence obtained should be excluded. After reviewing the evidence and arguments presented by both parties, the court found that the search warrant was valid and that the evidence obtained was admissible.
The court then moved on to consider the bail application. The prosecution argued that Brown should not be granted bail due to the seriousness of the charges and the risk of reoffending. The defence submitted that Brown was not a flight risk and that there were compelling reasons for his release on bail. After weighing the evidence and arguments, the court concluded that Brown was eligible for bail and set the conditions for his release. The court ordered that Brown be released on bail subject to certain conditions, including a curfew, regular check-ins with a bail supervisor, and a prohibition on contacting certain individuals.
The court's decision provides important guidance on the admissibility of evidence obtained during a search and the factors that should be considered when deciding whether to grant bail. The ruling underscores the importance of ensuring that search warrants are properly issued and that evidence is obtained in accordance with the law. The court's decision also highlights the need to balance the interests of the accused with the need to protect the community when deciding whether to grant bail. The final orders of the court were that Cody David Brown be released on bail subject to certain conditions, including a curfew, regular check-ins with a bail supervisor, and a prohibition on contacting certain individuals.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.