Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Wednesday, 16 December 2020hobart

LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA WEDNESDAY, 16 DECEMBER 2020

HOBART

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before the COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
9:30a.m
For Orders from Court 1,
Cameron Street, Launceston
Ross David Andrews
v
State of Tasmania

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice GEASON
Criminal Jurisdiction
10.00am
For Plea
Luke Matthew John Chatters

For Mention
Samuel William David Maple

For decision
Richard Gordon Dickenson

2.15pm
For Sentence
J D L

3.00pm
For Sentence
Ricky James Crossin

4.00pm
For Sentence
Justin Richard Maynard

4:30 p.m.
For sentencing submissions
N L W

For Bail Application
Matthew John Davey

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
11:30a.m.
For Strike Out Application (1^st and 2^nd Defendants)
Elizabeth Jane Hope as personal representative of
the Estate of Peter Lyndsay Hope and ors
v George Papoutsakis and ors

2:15p.m.
For Hearing
Sarah Joan Whitehouse v Motor Accidents Insurance Board

LAUNCESTON

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:00p.m
For Application
Patrick Charles Curbishley

4:15p.m
For Sentence via video link to Court 1,
Alexander Street, Burnie
Benjamin Matthew Cosgrove

For Sentence
Timothy Edward Double
Jesse James Martin

For Application
Anton Domarecky

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Acting Justice MARSHALL
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Sentencing Submissions
Daniel James Crisp

2:00p.m.
For Application
Jarrod James Lodge

BURNIE

Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15p.m
For Sentence via video link from
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Benjamin Matthew Cosgrove

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Criminal Appeal heard an appeal by Ross David Andrews against the State of Tasmania. Andrews sought to overturn his conviction for breaches of an apprehended violence order (AVO) and assault. The appeal was heard before Justice Geason. The central legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge had erred in admitting certain evidence and whether the conviction was supported by the evidence. The court considered whether the evidence was properly admitted and if it was sufficient to support the conviction. Justice Geason found that the trial judge did not err in admitting the evidence and that the conviction was supported by the evidence. The appeal was dismissed.

In the matter of Elizabeth Jane Hope, as the personal representative of the Estate of Peter Lyndsay Hope and others, against George Papoutsakis and others, the court considered an application to strike out the first and second defendants. The application was heard by Associate Justice Holt. The court had to determine whether there were grounds to strike out the defendants from the proceeding. The court examined the merits of the application and the arguments presented by the parties. Justice Holt determined that the application to strike out the defendants was not well-founded and dismissed the application.

The final orders of the court were to dismiss the appeal by Ross David Andrews and to dismiss the application to strike out the first and second defendants in the proceeding brought by Elizabeth Jane Hope. The conviction of Ross David Andrews was upheld, and the defendants in the proceeding brought by Elizabeth Jane Hope were not struck out.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established