Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Friday, 14 November 2014

SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA LAW LISTS FOR FRIDAY, 14 NOVEMBER 2014

HOBART

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before the COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
10:00 a.m.
For Judgment via video link from Supreme Court, Cameron Street, Launceston
TAP
v
State of Tasmania

For Hearing
JCS
v
State of Tasmania

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD

Civil Jurisdiction
9:30 a.m.
For Decision via video link to Supreme Court, Alexander Street, Burnie
Paul James Coppleman
v
Jessica Maree Godfrey

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

2:15 p.m.
For Judgment
Boat Harbour Beach Blue Waters Pty Ltd
v
Matthews Properties Pty Ltd and Ors

LAUNCESTON
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before the COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
10:00am For Judgment via video-link to Court 7, Supreme Court, Salamanca Place, Hobart
TAP v State of Tasmania

BURNIE
Supreme Court, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Justice WOOD
Civil Jurisdiction
9:30 a.m.
For Decision (via video link from Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart)
Paul James Coppleman
v
Jessica Maree Godfrey

______________________________________________________
(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

In the Supreme Court of Tasmania, several cases were listed for hearing on Friday, 14 November 2014. The first case involved the Court of Criminal Appeal, which was scheduled to deliver a judgment via video link from the Launceston Supreme Court to the Hobart Supreme Court. The appellant, TAP, was contesting a decision of the State of Tasmania. Another case before the Court of Criminal Appeal was JCS versus the State of Tasmania, which was also set for judgment via video link.

The court's primary task was to interpret and apply the relevant criminal laws to the facts of each case and determine whether the decisions of the lower courts were legally sound. The court needed to consider whether the rights of the appellants were upheld and whether there were any procedural errors that might have impacted the outcome. Justices presiding over the hearings were required to carefully review the evidence and submissions made by both parties to ensure a fair and just resolution.

The court's reasoning and outcome in each case were contingent upon the specific facts and legal arguments presented. In the matter of TAP versus the State of Tasmania, the court examined the legality of the state's decision and whether any errors occurred in the original proceedings. Similarly, in the case of JCS versus the State of Tasmania, the focus was on the fairness and correctness of the state's decision, with an emphasis on any potential procedural flaws. The final orders would reflect the court's determination on these issues.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established