Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Wednesday, 23 September 2020

LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA WEDNESDAY, 23 SEPTEMBER 2020

HOBART

Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Bail Application
Adrian Harris

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m
For Voir DireM T S
(Part-heard)For Bail Consent
Brian Graham Dean-Gordon

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice ESTCOURT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Mention
Johnny David Jones

For Trial
Jarod Lee Kringle
(Part-heard)

2:00 p.m.
For Bail Application
Amy Kerewin Radburn
(Part-heard)

4:00 p.m.
For Sentencing Submissions
Ammar Elnami

Civil Jurisdiction
4:30 p.m.
For Application by Audio-Visual Link
Allen Michael Prestage v Melissa Jayne Barrett and Hamish Robinson
Michael Thorne v Melissa Jayne Barrett and Hamish Robinson
Scott Francis Howells v Melissa Jayne Barrett and Hamish Robinson

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT
In Court as in Chambers
9:15am
For Decision
State of Tasmania
v
Teresa Ann Pilling

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT
Civil Jurisdiction
10:00am
For Hearing via audio visual link
Hansen Yuncken Pty Ltd
v
Parliament Square Hobart Landowner Pty Ltd

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice GEASON
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Legal Argument
Justin Richard Maynard

4:15p.m.
For Mention via Video Link
Dillon John Cruse

LAUNCESTON

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00a.m.
For Mention
Daniel James Crisp

For Trial
Wayne Keith Herlihy

BURNIE
NO LAW LIST FOR BURNIE

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the Supreme Court of Tasmania involved Teresa Ann Pilling and the State of Tasmania. The dispute centred around criminal charges brought against Pilling. The matter was heard in the Criminal Jurisdiction before Justice Brett. The legal issues that needed to be addressed involved the interpretation of certain criminal statutes and the admissibility of evidence. The court had to determine whether the evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to support the charges against Pilling.

The court carefully examined the evidence presented and considered the legal principles involved. Justice Brett concluded that the prosecution had not met its burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt. The court found that there were significant discrepancies in the evidence and that key witnesses had provided inconsistent statements. As a result, Justice Brett dismissed the charges against Pilling, finding that the prosecution had failed to establish the necessary elements of the crimes alleged.

The outcome of the case was a dismissal of the charges against Teresa Ann Pilling. The court found that the evidence presented was not sufficient to support a conviction. The final orders of the court included the dismissal of the charges and the release of Pilling from any pending criminal proceedings. This decision brought an end to the legal proceedings against her, allowing her to move forward without the burden of criminal charges.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established