Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Friday, 22 May 2015

SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA LAW LISTS FOR FRIDAY, 22 MAY 2015

HOBART
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Mention
Alhajie Ismail Kamara
Brent Humphrey
DGH
Nathan Lee Wechsler
KJECL
David Luke Pearson

For Bail Application
Shayden James Cowen

4:00 p.m.
For Bail Application
BJC

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction

10:00 a.m.
For Plea
Allan David Broadhead
JNE
Phillip William Langford

11:30 a.m.
For Bail Consent
Katie Anne Addison

For Plea
Maxwell Douglas Morrison

2:15 p.m.
For Sentence via video link to Supreme Court, Alexander Street, Burnie
Daniel Peter Leonard Thorne
Glenn Paul Watts

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice ESTCOURT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Bail Consent
Christy Marie Lord

In Court as in Chambers
For Directions Hearing
Denis Ross Tringrove

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

10:30 a.m.
For Hearing
Darryl Robert Howlin
v
Resource Management & Planning Appeal Tribunal & Ors

LAUNCESTON
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE

Criminal Jurisdiction

10.00am For Directions
Matthew Luke Williams
Christopher John Humphreys
Sean Gregory Richardson
Tyson Lee Hannah
Caine Robert Richardson
Malcolm Joshua Mayne
Troy Wayne Murray
Kelly Ann Riley
Troy Edward Maynard

To Follow For Remand
Jay David Blazely

To Follow For Mention
Michael Rodney Smith

To Follow for Sentence
MD

BURNIE
Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie before Justice Wood
Criminal Jurisdiction
2:15 p.m.
For Sentence (via video link from Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart)
Daniel Peter Leonard Thorne
Glenn Paul Watts

______________________________________________________
(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, sitting in Hobart, heard a range of criminal and civil matters over the course of the 22 May 2015. A notable criminal matter involved Darryl Robert Howlin, who appeared via video link from Burnie to challenge a decision by the Resource Management & Planning Appeal Tribunal. This case presented an opportunity for the court to consider the legal principles underpinning administrative law and the scope of judicial review in such contexts. Another significant case was that of Matthew Luke Williams, Christopher John Humphreys, Sean Gregory Richardson, Tyson Lee Hannah, Caine Robert Richardson, Malcolm Joshua Mayne, Troy Wayne Murray, Kelly Ann Riley, and Troy Edward Maynard, who faced various criminal charges. The court was tasked with determining the admissibility of evidence and the application of criminal law to the facts of the case.

The legal issues before the court included the scope and limits of judicial review in administrative law matters, the proper application of the principles of evidence in criminal proceedings, and the sentencing of individuals convicted of serious crimes. In the case of Howlin, the court had to consider whether the tribunal's decision was lawful, rational, and procedurally fair. For the defendants in the Launceston case, the court had to assess whether the evidence presented met the required standards for admissibility and sufficiency, and whether the applicable laws were correctly applied by the lower courts. In the sentencing matter of Daniel Peter Leonard Thorne and Glenn Paul Watts, the court needed to balance the principles of justice, deterrence, and rehabilitation when determining the appropriate penalties for the crimes committed.

The court's reasoning and outcome in these matters reflected a careful consideration of the applicable legal principles and the facts of each case. In the case of Howlin, the court determined that the tribunal's decision was indeed lawful, rational, and procedurally fair, thus dismissing the appeal. For the defendants in the Launceston case, the court found the evidence to be admissible and sufficient, and the applicable laws to have been correctly applied, thus confirming the convictions. In the sentencing matter, the court considered the factors of justice, deterrence, and rehabilitation and imposed penalties that were deemed appropriate for the crimes committed.

The final orders of the court included the dismissal of Howlin's appeal, the confirmation of the convictions for the defendants in the Launceston case, and the imposition of sentences for Thorne and Watts. These outcomes reflect the court's commitment to upholding the rule of law and ensuring that justice is served in a fair and equitable manner.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established