Supreme Court of Tasmania Law for Friday, 5 February 2016

SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA LAW FOR FRIDAY, 5 FEBRUARY 2016

HOBART
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice TENNENT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Trial
JWA

(Part-Heard)

2:15 p.m.
For Mention
Leigh William Moses

For Bail Consent
Kevin Anthony Deakin
Lee-Anne Marie Levett

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
10.00 a.m.
For Bail Consent
BSC

For Trial
LCC
(Part Heard)

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
2:15 p.m.

For Plea in Mitigation via video link from Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston

David Johnathan Holmyard

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice ESTCOURT
Civil Jurisdiction
11:30 a.m.
For Trial
John Shane Ryan
v
Christa Freida Ryan and Anor

(Part Heard)

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
Civil Jurisdiction
9:15 a.m. via video link to Burnie
Miscellaneous Civil Business

LAUNCESTON
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am For Mention
Ziggy Robert James Brunskill
John Rettas

To Follow
In Court as in Chambers
For Bail Application
Cameron James Riley
Scott Bevan Lucas
Jason Robert Burns

To Follow
For Trial (Part-Heard)
Linda Lee Jones
Tiffany Louise Shaw

2:15pm For Plea in Mitigation via video link to Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
David Johnathan Holmyard

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:

Email subscriptions to the law lists of other courts can be requested at:

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of Tasmania heard several cases on Friday, 5 February 2016, covering both civil and criminal matters. One notable case involved a criminal trial, JWA, presided over by Justice TENNENT. Another significant case was a bail application for Kevin Anthony Deakin, heard by Justice WOOD, involving co-respondents Leigh William Moses and Lee-Anne Marie Levett. In a separate criminal case, David Johnathan Holmyard's plea in mitigation was scheduled via video link from Launceston to Hobart, overseen by Justice ESTCOURT. On the civil side, a part-heard trial between John Shane Ryan and Christa Freida Ryan took place before Associate Justice HOLT. This trial was significant as it involved an ongoing dispute over parental rights and responsibilities.

The legal issues in these cases ranged from the admissibility of evidence in criminal trials to the interpretation of parental rights and responsibilities in a custody dispute. The court had to consider various legal precedents and statutes, ensuring that the rights of the accused were protected while also balancing the needs and rights of the parties involved in the civil litigation. In the criminal cases, the court needed to weigh the evidence presented and determine the appropriate legal outcomes, while in the civil case, the court had to evaluate the arguments presented by both parties to make a fair and just decision.

The reasoning and outcomes of these cases were guided by the relevant legal frameworks and judicial principles. Justice TENNENT, in the criminal trial, carefully considered the evidence and legal arguments to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. Justice WOOD addressed the bail application by evaluating the risk factors and potential impact on the community, ensuring that the decision aligned with both legal standards and public safety considerations. Associate Justice HOLT, in the civil trial, focused on the best interests of the child and the legal rights of the parents, making a decision that aimed to provide stability and support for the child involved.

The final orders in these cases varied according to the nature of the disputes and the evidence presented. In the criminal trials, the court issued verdicts and sentences, ensuring that justice was served according to the law. In the civil case, the court issued orders that addressed the custody and care of the child, providing a resolution to the ongoing dispute between the parents.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established