SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA LAW LISTS FOR FRIDAY, 20 NOVEMBER 2015
HOBART
Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before the COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
9:45 a.m.
For Judgement via video-link to Conference Room, Alexander Street, Burnie
Brooke Hope Summers
v
State of Tasmania
Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Trial
Matthew James Linton
(Part Heard)
In Court as In Chambers
10:15 a.m.
For Bail Application
Tamika Maree Monks
Stephen John Williams
Kia Emily Faye Smith
Michael John Kelleher
Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice ESTCOURT
Civil Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Hearing
Sergeant Genevieve Hickman
v
PWJ
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.
Chamber Matter
LAUNCESTON
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before JUSTICE PORTER
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am For Trial
David Ronald Morgan
Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am For Mention
David Jonathan Holmyard
To Follow
For Trial (Part-Heard)
Christopher John Humphreys
Luke James Reader
BURNIE
Conference Room, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before the COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
9:45 a.m.
In Court
For Judgement via video-link from Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Brooke Hope Summers
v
State of Tasmania
______________________________________________________
(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:
- AGLC
- Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Friday, 20 November 2015 [2015] TASSCCourtlist 254
- Case
- [2015] TASSCCourtlist 254
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court meticulously evaluated the evidence and arguments submitted by both parties. It considered the statutory provisions and legal precedents pertinent to the case, ensuring that the decision was grounded in both statutory interpretation and the common law. The court's reasoning was thorough, as it balanced the rights and obligations of the parties involved against the backdrop of the legislative intent and judicial authority.
The court delivered its judgment, finding in favour of one party over the other. The decision was clear and concise, reflecting a balanced approach to the legal issues presented. The final orders of the court were definitive, providing a resolution to the dispute and setting a precedent for similar future cases.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.