Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Wednesday, 6 June 2018

LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA WEDNESDAY, 6 JUNE 2018

HOBART

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction

4:15 p.m.

For Sentence
Rianna Rochelle Lumley

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00a.m.
For Trial
David John Eaton
(Part Heard)

4:15p.m.
For Bail Application
Troy Lovell
Rachel Lee Clark

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT

Criminal Jurisdiction

10:00 a.m.
For Bail Consent
LWC

For Trial
Thomas Oliver Melick
(Part-Heard)

4:15 p.m.
For Sentence
Kristel Cee-Anne Cowen
Rowan Marcus Trappes

For Directions Hearing

Christopher Craig Banks
v
State of Tasmania

Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Acting Justice MARSHALL
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:30 a.m.
For Sentencing Submissions

Stephen John Gleeson

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Acting Justice PORTER
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:30 a.m.
For Trial
Timothy Owen Adams
(Part-Heard)

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
Civil Jurisdiction
11:00 a.m.
Set aside certificate of taxation/Remove caveat
Anthony smith v Worrall Lawyers

2:15p.m.
Chamber Matter

LAUNCESTON

NO LAW LIST FOR LAUNCESTON

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:

The Supreme Court of Tasmania convened on 6 June 2018, with several criminal and civil matters listed for hearing. One of the criminal cases involved Rianna Rochelle Lumley, who appeared in Court 1 before Justice PEARCE for sentencing. Another case, concerning David John Eaton, was listed for a trial part-heard in Court 1 before Justice PEARCE in the afternoon session. Further down the list, Troy Lovell and Rachel Lee Clark had a bail application in Court 8 before Justice BRETT, and Thomas Oliver Melick appeared for a part-heard trial. In a civil case, Anthony Smith v. Worrall Lawyers, a certificate of taxation was to be set aside and a caveat removed in Court 3 before Associate Justice HOLT. The court also heard a directions hearing for a case brought by Christopher Craig Banks against the State of Tasmania in Court 2 before Acting Justice MARSHALL.

The legal issues presented before the court encompassed a variety of criminal proceedings, including sentencing, bail applications, and trials. In the case of Rianna Rochelle Lumley, the court was required to determine an appropriate sentence. For David John Eaton and Thomas Oliver Melick, the court needed to proceed with the trials, with Eaton's case being part-heard and Melick's being similarly part-heard. The bail application for Troy Lovell and Rachel Lee Clark necessitated the court's consideration of the merits of the application, while the civil case involving Anthony Smith and Worrall Lawyers required the court to address the procedural matters of setting aside a certificate of taxation and removing a caveat. Additionally, the directions hearing for Christopher Craig Banks v. State of Tasmania would have involved the court providing guidance on the procedural steps moving forward in that case.

The reasoning and outcomes of each case were determined by the specific facts and legal arguments presented to the court. For sentencing in criminal cases, the court would have considered the circumstances of the offence, the offender's background, and any mitigating or aggravating factors. In the bail application, the court would have assessed the risk of flight, the risk of reoffending, and any other relevant considerations to decide whether to grant or refuse bail. In civil proceedings, the court would have focused on the procedural issues raised by the parties, such as the validity of the certificate of taxation and the appropriateness of the caveat's removal. The directions hearing would have involved the court providing procedural direction based on the state of the case and the applicable law. The outcomes of these hearings would have been communicated to the parties by the respective justices.

The final orders made by the court would have been communicated to the parties following the hearings. These orders would have reflected the court's determinations on the issues presented, including sentences, bail decisions, and procedural directions. The specific outcomes for each case would have been detailed in written reasons or orders provided to the parties after the hearings.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established