Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Wednesday 19 December 2018

LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA WEDNESDAY 19 DECEMBER 2018

HOBART

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Directions Hearing
Kim Michelle Gleeson
Samuel David Pennicott
Brendan James McGuire

For Bail Variation
BPJ

For Bail Application
HFR
Nicholas James Dillon

2:15 p.m.
For Directions Hearing via video link to Launceston Reception Prison
CJW

For Sentence
Grant Andrew Crawford

For Facts and Sentence
Damien Wayne Smith

4:00 p.m.
For Sentence
Thomas Fulcher

5:00 p.m.
For Directions Hearing vide video link to court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
DPH

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
Civil Jurisdiction
9:30 a.m.

Direction Hearings
Kent Anderson and anor
v
Fonterra Australia Pty Ltd and anor

LAUNCESTON

No law list for Launceston

BURNIE

Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction

5:00 p.m.
For Directions Hearing vide video link to court 7, Salamanca Place, Burnie
DPH

(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

The Supreme Court of Tasmania, sitting in Hobart, presided over several cases on 19 December 2018, involving both criminal and civil matters. The court heard bail variation and sentence applications, as well as directions hearings. Among the criminal cases, Kim Michelle Gleeson, Samuel David Pennicott, and Brendan James McGuire were scheduled for a directions hearing. Additionally, there were bail applications for Nicholas James Dillon and a sentence application for Grant Andrew Crawford. In the civil jurisdiction, the court handled a direction hearing between Kent Anderson and others against Fonterra Australia Pty Ltd and others.

The legal issues before the court encompassed the assessment of bail variations, the determination of appropriate sentences, and the direction of ongoing proceedings. For the bail variation applications, the court had to consider whether the applicants met the criteria for a change in their bail conditions. In the sentencing cases, the court needed to evaluate the severity of the offences and the relevant mitigating or aggravating factors to determine appropriate penalties. The direction hearings required the court to outline the procedural steps necessary for the continuation of the respective cases.

The court's reasoning and outcome were not detailed in the document. However, the nature of the hearings suggests that the court would have addressed each matter based on the merits presented in the applications and submissions. The decisions likely reflected a careful consideration of the evidence and legal arguments provided by the parties involved. The final orders would have been communicated directly to the parties, outlining the court's decisions on bail variations, sentences, and procedural directions.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established