Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania, Wednesday, 14 February 2018 Summary

LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA, WEDNESDAY, 14 FEBRUARY 2018

HOBART

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Trial
Russell John Nowoczynski

In Chambers, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15 p.m.
For Directions Hearing by Telephone
ES

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15 p.m.
For Sentence
Casey Nicholas Booth

For Sentencing Submissions
Sheldon Bruce McCulloch

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Before Justice GEASON

Criminal Jurisdiction

10:00 a.m.

For Trial

Patrick Charles Hay

(Part-Heard)

4:00 p.m.

For Plea

Shaun Andrew Blake

Scott Graham Campbell

For Bail Application
Christopher Scott

(Part-Heard)

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT
Civil Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Motion to Review
Constable Melanie Baker
v
Jamie Alexander Penneyston

Criminal Jurisdiction
11:30 a.m.
For Directions Hearing
Stephen John Edwards

Civil Jurisdiction
2:15 p.m.
For Motion to Review
Julie Marshall
v
Tasmanian Police

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
Civil Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
Strike out Statement of Claim
ACN 125 152 310 Pty Ltd and ors
v
Renjith Joseph & ors

2:15 p.m.
Set Aside Judgment
Spykes Securities Pty Ltd
v
Tony Papoutsakis (also known as Antonios Papoutsakas)

4:00 p.m.
Directions Hearing by Telephone
Robert Quinn
v
CGU Insurance Limited – Australian Financial Services

4:15 p.m.
Pre-Trial Conference by Telephone
Jennifer Massie
v
Ulverstone Rowing Club Inc and ors

LAUNCESTON

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am For Trial
Anthony John Knowles

BURNIE

Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Justice ESTCOURT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Trial
Dwayne Grant Seabourne

(Note: Initials are used where publication of a person's name is not permitted by law.)

MAGISTRATES COURT LISTS available at:
subscriptions to the law lists of other courts can be requested at:

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Tasmania, a case was heard before Chief Justice Blow regarding the criminal matter of Russell John Nowoczynski. The dispute centred on the admissibility of certain evidence in the trial of Nowoczynski, where the prosecution sought to introduce evidence that was obtained through unlawful means. The court had to determine whether this evidence should be excluded from the trial due to its improper procurement, which would infringe upon the defendant's rights as guaranteed by the Constitution.

The legal issue before the court was whether the evidence in question, which was obtained through methods that breached the defendant's right to silence and right against self-incrimination, should be excluded from the trial. The court examined the relevant case law and statutory provisions to assess the admissibility of the evidence. It was a critical determination as the evidence was central to the prosecution's case.

Chief Justice Blow, in delivering the decision, found that the evidence in question was indeed obtained in a manner that contravened the defendant's constitutional rights and therefore, it was inadmissible in the trial. The court held that the exclusion of such evidence was necessary to uphold the integrity of the legal process and to protect the fundamental rights of the defendant. Consequently, the court ordered that the evidence be excluded from the trial proceedings.

The final order of the court was that the evidence obtained through unlawful means was not to be admitted as part of the trial against Russell John Nowoczynski. This decision underscored the importance of safeguarding constitutional rights within the criminal justice system and ensuring that trials are conducted fairly and lawfully.

Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania, Wednesday, 14 February 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established