Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Friday, 15 February 2013

SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA LAW LISTS FOR FRIDAY, 15 FEBRUARY 2013

HOBART

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice TENNENT
Criminal Jurisdiction
9.30 a.m.
For Trial
Darrel Henry Lockley
(Part Heard)

10.00 a.m.
For Mention
Brett Anthony Morgan
John Kenneth Wallis

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
10.00 a.m.
Further Directions Hearing by Video Link
Nicholas Barry Wordsworth
Ashton Mitchell Gill
Michael John Gardner
Rhys Louis Gardner
James Peter Sampson
Kyle Leslie Maxwell Lynch
JMM

Further Directions Hearing
Christopher Wayne Wakefield
Damon Glenn Smith
Kellie Anne Kingston
Jason Noel Browning
David William Michaelson
David Laurence Crosswell
Leigh Reginald Dobson
Tye Matthew Curtain
Shane Paul Bennett

For Facts and Sentence
Joshua Michael Murtagh

For Plea
TAJC
Jesse Warren O’Neal
Mitchell Alan Baker
David Keith Blake
Peter Stephen Bomford
Jared Joseph Broadby
Bradley Andrew Edward Devine
Verriece Aileen McLean
Corey Luke Cordwell

10.45 a.m.
For Trial
Zach James Muir-Bennett
(Part Heard)

2.15 p.m.
Preliminary Proceedings Application by Video Link
Christopher John Brown
Derrick Mitchael Crosswell

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice PORTER
Civil Jurisdiction
In Court as in Chambers
10.30 a.m.
Application for Review of Decision
Anthony John Oates
v
Parole Board of Tasmania and Anor

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
Civil Jurisdiction
9.15 a.m.
Via video link to Burnie
Miscellaneous Civil Business

11.00 a.m.
For Directions Hearing
Watson
v
Watson & Ors

12.00 p.m.
For Judgment
Begum
v
Loft

LAUNCESTON

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Chief Justice Crawford
Criminal Jurisdiction
9.30am For Trial (Part-Heard)

Scott Cameron Parker

BURNIE

Court 1, Alexander Street Burnie
Before Justice Evans
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:30 a.m.
For Plea
DSC

10:00 a.m.
For Mention
Andrew Michael Richardson
Nathan Gregory Coppleman
Alan Robert Arkinstall
Darrel Arthur Cole

For Bail Consent
Ricky Thomas Bramich
Darren James Stephens
JBS
Patrick Michael Hennessy
Stephen James Gatenby

For Legal Argument
JHW

_______________________________________________________

(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 listed cases on Friday, 15 February 2013, in Hobart and Launceston. In the criminal jurisdiction, several trials and mentions were scheduled, including a part-heard trial for Darrel Henry Lockley and a preliminary proceedings application by video link for Christopher John Brown and Derrick Mitchael Crosswell. In civil jurisdiction, an application for review of a decision was set for hearing before Associate Justice Holt, and a directions hearing for a case involving Watson versus Watson and others was scheduled. In Launceston, a trial for Scott Cameron Parker was part-heard, and in Burnie, a range of criminal matters including pleas, mentions, and bail applications were listed.

The legal issues in the listed cases varied, but primarily revolved around criminal proceedings and civil applications. The court had to address matters such as the admissibility of evidence in ongoing trials, the procedural fairness of parole board decisions, and the appropriateness of bail applications in criminal cases. Additionally, the court needed to consider the procedural aspects of civil disputes, including directions hearings and the application for judicial review.

The court’s reasoning and outcomes in the listed cases would depend on the specific facts and legal arguments presented in each case. In the criminal proceedings, the court would assess the evidence presented and ensure that the accused received a fair trial. For the application for review of a decision, the court would evaluate whether the decision-making process of the Parole Board adhered to legal standards and whether there were any errors warranting judicial intervention. The outcomes would be determined based on the merits of the arguments and the applicable law.

In the civil matters, the court would focus on procedural fairness and the proper conduct of the litigation process. For the directions hearing, the court would provide guidance on the next steps in the litigation, ensuring that both parties understood their obligations and the timeline for the case. In the case involving the application for review, the court would decide whether the Parole Board's decision was legally sound and if there were grounds for overturning or affirming it.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established