Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Friday, 27 November 2015

SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA LAW LISTS FOR FRIDAY, 27 NOVEMBER 2015

HOBART

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before the FULL COURT
10:00 a.m.
For Judgment
Acting Director of Public Prosecutions
v
JCN

Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Trial
BSC

In Court as in Chambers
4:00 p.m.
For Bail Application
Melita Joanne Matepi

LAUNCESTON

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PORTER
Criminal Jurisdiction
12:00pm For Trial (Part Heard)

David Ronald Morgan

Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston

Before Justice PEARCE

Criminal Jurisdiction

10:00am For Preliminary Proceedings Application
Jamie Michael Richards

To Follow For Trial (Part Heard)
David Johnathan Holmyard

BURNIE

Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Justice Tennent
Criminal Jurisdiction

10:00 a.m.

For Mention via Video-Link to Risdon Prison Complex

RMW

For Mention

Bradley John Matic

TGC

Nathan Allan Wilton

For Preliminary Proceedings Application

John Adam Streets

For Facts and Sentence

Leigh Anthony Sweetman

Karl Robert Mosley

Taylor Page Maree Bessell

Jacob Lea Wynwood

Aaron Luke Dooley

For Bail Consent

MJJ

Christopher James Harris

Zoe Lee Griffiths

______________________________________________________
(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 matters on 27 November 2015, including a case where the Acting Director of Public Prosecutions was the plaintiff and JCN was the defendant. The matter was set for judgment in the full court before Chief Justice BLOW. Another case involved a bail application by Melita Joanne Matepi, to be heard before Justice PORTER. Furthermore, David Ronald Morgan's trial was scheduled for 12:00pm in Launceston before Justice PEARCE, with a preliminary proceedings application to follow.

The legal issues in these cases likely pertained to criminal jurisdiction, the merits of the prosecution's case, and the procedural aspects of the defendants' bail applications. The court needed to consider whether the prosecution's evidence was sufficient to warrant a conviction and whether the defendants met the criteria for bail or other preliminary proceedings. The reasoning of the court would have involved a detailed analysis of the evidence presented and the application of relevant legal principles.

The court's outcome would have depended on the specific facts and arguments presented in each case. For the judgment in the full court, the judges would have reviewed the entire case, including the evidence and legal arguments, to determine the guilt or innocence of the defendant. In the bail application, the court would have assessed the risk of the defendant failing to appear in court and the risk to the community if released on bail. The final orders would have been made based on the court's findings and the applicable legal standards.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established