Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Wednesday, 26 February 2020

LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA WEDNESDAY, 26 FEBRUARY 2020

HOBART

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:45 a.m
For Directions Hearing
N A C

10:00 a.m
For Bail Consent
Johnny David Jones

For Directions Hearing
B D M
R H K

For Special Hearing
B G M

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15p.m.
For Directions Hearing via video link
to Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Saxon John Horton

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
11 am
In the matter of the Testator’s Family Maintenance Act 1912, s 3
Sally Baily and Cheryl Maree Bennett v Mark Richard De Vries
and Patrick James Forbes Lunn; Cheryl Frances Voss and Cathy
Barbara Griggs
For hearing

LAUNCESTON

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00a.m.
For Mention
Dylan Adam Traill-Barwick

For Trial
DJB
(Part-heard)

BURNIE

Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:45 a.m.
For Trial
Elias Maffeking Kefalianos
(part-heard)

10:00 a.m.
Bail Consent
MJW

For Trial
DWW
(part-heard)

4:00 p.m.
Sentencing Submissions
DVM

Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15p.m.
For Directions Hearing via video link
from Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Saxon John Horton

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case was heard by Justice Brett in the Supreme Court of Tasmania, where Saxon John Horton was seeking directions. Horton, represented by B D M R H K, appeared via video link from Court 1 in Salamanca Place, Hobart. The matter pertained to directions in a criminal case, indicating a procedural issue requiring judicial guidance. Justice Brett was tasked with determining the appropriate steps to be taken in Horton's case, likely to ensure that the proceedings adhered to legal standards and timelines.

The primary legal issue before Justice Brett was to establish the proper course of action for Horton's criminal case. This included deciding whether the case should proceed with specific directives or if any amendments to the case management were necessary. Given the nature of the hearing, the court had to consider the implications of conducting the case via video link, ensuring that the defendant's rights were protected while maintaining the efficiency of the judicial process.

Justice Brett provided directions that were deemed appropriate for Horton's case, considering the procedural and logistical aspects of conducting the hearing via video link. The court's decision was based on ensuring that the defendant received fair treatment and that the judicial process was transparent and effective. Justice Brett's directions aimed to streamline the proceedings, ensuring they were conducted efficiently while safeguarding the rights of the accused.

No specific final orders were mentioned in the summary, but the directions provided by Justice Brett would have outlined the next steps in Horton's case, potentially including further hearings, the scheduling of trials, or other procedural requirements.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established