Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Tuesday, 6 September 2016

LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA TUESDAY, 6 SEPTEMBER 2016

HOBART

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Trial
Zeb Haas
(Part Heard)

4:00 p.m.
For Sentence
Curtis Patrick Robert Clay

For Bail Application
Brendan James McGuire
Ashton Mitchell Gill

Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice ESTCOURT
Criminal Jurisdiction

4:00pm via video link from
Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
For Directions Hearing
MG

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.

For Mention
NDK

For Trial
Angela Maree Leahy
(Part-Heard)

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Civil Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Trial
Andrew John Bowles
v
Motor Accidents Insurance Board
(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
10:00am For Trial (Part-Heard)
LAP

4:15pm For Application to Vary Bail
Jay Allen Charles Reed

To Follow
For Bail Application
RGCB

BURNIE

Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Justice ESTCOURT
10:00 a.m.
For Breach of Bail
James Brendon Hardwick

For Bail Consent
Malcolm Bruce Garwood

For Trial
Christopher James Harris

4:00pm
via Video Link to Court 2,
Salamanca Place, Hobart
For Directions Hearing

(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 Supreme Court of Tasmania heard a range of matters on the 6th of September, 2016, including criminal and civil cases. Zeb Haas faced a part-heard trial, Curtis Patrick Robert Clay awaited sentencing, and Brendan James McGuire and Ashton Mitchell Gill applied for bail. Justice ESTCOURT presided over a directions hearing for MG via video link from Burnie, and Angela Maree Leahy's trial was also part-heard. In civil matters, Andrew John Bowles continued his case against the Motor Accidents Insurance Board before Associate Justice HOLT, while miscellaneous civil business was handled in Launceston. Justice PEARCE dealt with a part-heard trial and an application to vary bail for Jay Allen Charles Reed. In Burnie, Justice ESTCOURT addressed a breach of bail for James Brendon Hardwick, a bail consent application for Malcolm Bruce Garwood, and a directions hearing for Christopher James Harris via video link to Hobart.

The legal issues that arose in these cases varied greatly, encompassing criminal proceedings such as bail applications, breaches of bail, and sentencing, as well as civil litigation concerning motor accidents insurance. The court had to determine the admissibility and relevance of evidence presented, the appropriateness of bail conditions, and the application of statutory provisions to the facts of each case. For civil matters, the court needed to interpret and apply relevant legislation and common law principles to resolve disputes between the parties.

In its reasoning, the court carefully considered the evidence and submissions from both parties. For criminal cases, the court balanced the rights of the accused against the need to protect the community, ensuring that bail conditions were appropriate to mitigate risk while respecting the presumption of innocence. Sentencing decisions were based on the principles of retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, and denunciation. In civil cases, the court examined the statutory framework and factual circumstances to determine liability and appropriate remedies. The outcome of each case reflected the court's application of legal principles to the specific facts presented.

The final orders of the court would have varied depending on the outcome of each case. In criminal matters, sentences were imposed, bail conditions were varied or confirmed, and trials were either concluded or continued. In civil proceedings, the court may have directed further evidence, made interlocutory orders, or delivered final judgments. Each decision was tailored to the unique circumstances of the case, reflecting the court's role in interpreting and applying the law to resolve disputes.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established