Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Tuesday 7 September 2021 Summary

LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA TUESDAY 7 SEPTEMBER 2021

HOBART

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Trial (Part-Heard)
Daniel Robert Knowles

4:00 p.m.
For Application via video-link to Magistrates Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Jayden Garry Fehlberg
(Part-Heard)

Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice ESTCOURT
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15 p.m.
For Plea via video-link to Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Jeremy Mark Quinn

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am
For Trial
MJD

4:15pm
For Decision via video link to Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Liam Whitton-Lowe

For Mention via video link to Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie and Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston
Nicholas Kyle Jones

For Mention
Trent Mervyn

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice GEASON
Criminal Jurisdiction

10am
For mention by video-link to Hobart Reception Prison
Ashley Dean Brown
Sam Cullen

For mention by video-link to Ron Barwick Prison
Tobias Oddie-Jones

For trial
James Stuart Walker

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
9:30a.m.
For Directions Hearing
Deanne LETTER (ADAMSON) v Gary KODE and anor

For Directions Hearing
Christine CAUDWELL and anor v Stephen WILKINSON and ors

11:00a.m.
For R414 Directions Hearing
Veronica Rita RAGAGLIA v THE TRUSTEE FOR THE D&A WILLIAMSON FAMILY TRUST T/as CrossFit 42 South and ors

12:00p.m.
For Directions Hearing
Kaye Margaret LITTLEDYKE v Wendy Louise SMITH and ors

For Directions Hearing
Dorothy Mavis DANIELS v Public Trustee and Executor of the Estate of the Late Alfred Ernest Pearce

For Directions Hearing
2:15p.m. via MS Teams
For Directions Hearing
Ann Marise GARLING v Tony PATINIOTIS

For Hearing
Darren Kingsley TRESSIDER v CRANES COMBINED PTY LTD

LAUNCESTON

Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am
4:15pm
For Mention via video link to Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart and Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston
Nicholas Kyle Jones

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice ESTCOURT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Trial
Alesha Nyl Prentice
(Part-heard)

4:15 p.m.
For Plea via video-link to Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Jeremy Mark Quinn

Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15 pm
For Directions Hearing via video-link from Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Cecil Maurice Mabb

BURNIE

Magistrates Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:00 p.m.
For Application via video-link from Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Jayden Garry Fehlberg
(Part-Heard)

Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15pm
For Decision via video link to Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Liam Whitton-Lowe

For Mention via video link to Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart and Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston
Nicholas Kyle Jones

Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 am
For Mention
Liam Michael Elkin
Nathan James Gale

For Trial
Thomas Joseph Gardam

4:15 pm
For Directions Hearing via video-link to Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston
Cecil Maurice Mabb

In the Supreme Court of Tasmania, Justice Wood presided over a criminal case involving Daniel Robert Knowles. The matter was part-heard and involved a trial. The nature of the dispute was criminal in nature, with Knowles facing charges that were not specified in the extract. The court had to decide on the legal issues pertaining to the charges brought against Knowles and whether the prosecution had presented sufficient evidence to support a conviction.

The court's reasoning and outcome were not provided in the extract, but it is expected that Justice Wood would have considered the evidence presented, the applicable law, and the principles of criminal justice in reaching a decision. The court would have assessed the credibility of the witnesses, the reliability of the evidence, and whether the prosecution had proven the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. The final orders of the court would have been communicated to the parties involved, and any appeals or further legal actions would have been determined based on the outcome of the trial.

In the same court session, there was an application by Jayden Garry Fehlberg, which was also part-heard and involved a video-link to the Magistrates Court. The legal issues in this matter would have involved the procedural aspects of the application and whether the application met the requirements set out in the law. The court would have considered the evidence and arguments presented by both parties and would have made a decision based on the merits of the application.

The final orders of the court in this matter would have been communicated to the parties involved, and any further legal actions would have been determined based on the outcome of the application. The court's decision would have been based on a thorough analysis of the evidence and legal principles relevant to the application.

Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Tuesday 7 September 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established