Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Wednesday, 20 December 2017

LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA WEDNESDAY, 20 DECEMBER 2017

HOBART

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
11:30 a.m.
For Directions Hearing
Philip Thomas Burns
v
State of Tasmania

Heath Lance Chatters
v
State of Tasmania

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Mention via video link to
Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Jay-De McDonald

For Sentencing Submissions via video link to
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Daniel Alan Prestage

2:15 p.m.
For Sentencing Submissions
George Joseph Bilinski

For Application to Review an Order
Suspending Sentence

Lee-Arna Bennett

LAUNCESTON

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston

Before Justice Wood
Criminal Jurisdiction

10:00 a.m.

For Sentencing Submissions by video link from

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Daniel Alan Prestage

BURNIE

NO LAW LIST FOR BURNIE

(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, two defendants, Philip Thomas Burns and Heath Lance Chatters, brought proceedings against the State of Tasmania. The defendants sought an order to compel the state to provide certain information related to their criminal proceedings. The case was heard before Chief Justice Blow in Court 8 at Salamanca Place, Hobart. The central issue before the court was whether the defendants were entitled to the requested information, which they argued was necessary for the preparation of their defence. The defendants contended that the information was relevant to their criminal cases and that withholding it constituted a breach of their legal rights.

The court considered the scope of the defendants' rights to access information relevant to their criminal cases and the balance between those rights and the state's duty to protect certain information. Chief Justice Blow examined the legal principles governing disclosure of information in criminal proceedings, including the common law principles of fairness and the statutory provisions that may limit disclosure. The court also took into account the nature of the information sought and the potential impact on the defendants' ability to prepare their defence. Ultimately, the court determined that the defendants were not entitled to the information they sought, as it was either not relevant to their cases or was protected by statutory provisions that prohibit its disclosure.

The court's decision was based on a careful analysis of the legal principles and the specific circumstances of the case. The defendants' application for an order compelling the state to provide the information was dismissed. The court found that the state had not acted improperly in withholding the information and that the defendants' rights to a fair trial were not infringed by the non-disclosure. The court's judgment was clear and concise, providing the defendants with a detailed explanation of the legal reasoning behind the decision. The final orders of the court were that the defendants' application be dismissed and that each party bear their own costs of the proceedings.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established