Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Tuesday, 7 February 2017

LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA TUESDAY, 7 FEBRUARY 2017

HOBART

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Mention
Corey Graeme Farr

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Before Justice ESTCOURT
Criminal Jurisdiction

12:00 p.m.
For Plea
Aaron William Nash Spong

4:00 p.m.
For Bail Application
Joseph Michael Susnja
Zachary Dillon Wright

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.

For Trial
Klaus Dieter Neubert
(Part-Heard)

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Civil Jurisdiction
4:00 p.m.
For Decision
George Westbrooke Burton Snr
v
George Westbrooke Burton Jnr and ors

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
Civil Jurisdiction

10:00am
For Hearing
The Queen v JPRB

Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15pm
For Sentencing Submissions
KJW

BURNIE

Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie before Chief Justice Blow
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.

For Trial
GRB

(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 variety of cases on Tuesday, 7 February 2017. In the criminal jurisdiction, Justice Wood presided over a case involving Corey Graeme Farr at 10:00 AM, followed by a plea for Aaron William Nash Spong at 12:00 PM. Justice Estcourt handled a bail application involving Joseph Michael Susnja and Zachary Dillon Wright at 4:00 PM, and Justice Brett conducted a trial for Klaus Dieter Neubert. In the civil jurisdiction, Justice Wood dealt with a case at 4:00 PM, while Associate Justice Holt managed a miscellaneous civil business case at 9:30 AM. The Launceston Court handled a hearing at 10:00 AM, and the Burnie Court heard trial submissions at 10:00 AM.

The legal issues presented in these cases varied, but they all fell within the purview of the Supreme Court's criminal and civil jurisdictions. The court had to address matters such as bail applications, pleas, trials, and sentencing submissions, requiring careful consideration of the applicable laws and precedents. The court's role was to ensure that the legal process was followed correctly, that the rights of the accused and the victims were protected, and that justice was served according to the law.

The court's reasoning and outcomes were not detailed in the provided text, but it can be inferred that the judges considered the evidence and arguments presented in each case. They applied the relevant legal principles and statutes to reach their decisions, which would have been communicated to the parties involved. The outcomes likely included decisions on bail, pleas, convictions, and sentences, as well as rulings on civil matters. The detailed reasoning and outcomes would have been documented in the court's records and potentially in written judgments or orders.

The final orders of the court, including any sentences or rulings, would have been communicated to the parties involved and recorded in the court's official documents. These orders would have provided the resolution to the legal disputes presented in each case, ensuring that the court's decisions were implemented and that justice was achieved for all parties involved.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established