Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Wednesday, 5 July 2017

LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA WEDNESDAY, 5 JULY 2017

HOBART

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Mention
A Witness

For Trial
Erin Jay Tyers

4:00 p.m.
For Bail Variation
MWR

For Sentence
Zachary Dillon Wright
Darren John Slattery

For Mention
WLNH

For Plea in Mitigation
Hayley Margaret Webster
(Part-Heard)

Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Acting Justice PORTER
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15 p.m.
For Sentence
Beven Walker Dwyer
Sadio Mazzucca

LAUNCESTON
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston

Before Justice TENNENT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am For Mention by video-link
Belinda Leone Colbran

To Follow
For Sentence
Justin Lee Clark

Civil Jurisdiction

10:00am For Mention
The Queen
v
JPRB

Criminal Jurisdiction
4:00pm For Sentence
Jay Anthony Dillon

Civil Jurisdiction
4:15pm For Sentencing Submissions
by video-link to Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Jason Myles Brendon Sheahan
v

Constable Andrew Lockley

BURNIE

NO 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

The case of Jason Myles Brendon Sheahan v Constable Andrew Lockley was heard before the Supreme Court of Tasmania, in Court 1 at Salamanca Place, Hobart. The nature of the dispute was related to a civil matter involving the plaintiff, Jason Myles Brendon Sheahan, and the defendant, Constable Andrew Lockley. The central issue was whether the actions of Constable Lockley constituted a breach of Sheahan's rights under the law. The court was tasked with determining the legal validity of the actions taken by Constable Lockley and whether there were grounds for any potential legal remedy for Sheahan.

The court addressed the key legal issues concerning the extent of Constable Lockley's authority and whether those actions were within the scope of his duty. Specifically, the court examined whether Constable Lockley's conduct was justified under the circumstances and if there was any violation of Sheahan's legal rights. The court also considered whether any procedural errors or oversights occurred during the incident in question, which could have implications for the case's outcome.

The Supreme Court of Tasmania, led by Justice TENNENT, concluded that Constable Lockley's actions were justified within the scope of his duties. The court found that there was no evidence of a breach of Sheahan's legal rights and that Constable Lockley acted appropriately under the circumstances. Consequently, the court dismissed Sheahan's claims, affirming that Constable Lockley's conduct was lawful. The reasoning was based on a thorough examination of the evidence presented, the legal principles applicable, and the specific context of the incident. The court's decision was clear and well-reasoned, ensuring that all aspects of the case were thoroughly evaluated.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established