Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Friday, 28 November 2014

SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA LAW LISTS FOR FRIDAY, 28 NOVEMBER 2014

HOBART
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before the COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
10:00 a.m.
For Publication of Reasons
JCS
v
State of Tasmania

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00
For Bail Consent
David John Hurd

Civil Jurisdiction
10:00
For Hearing
The Queen
v
Steven MacDessi; ex parte Tamara Walton and Fraser Hopwood

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice PORTER
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Mention
Byron Rowan Smith
Alle Sleman
Dawn Ruth Flower
Robin Thomas Flower
GI-M
Elhadi Ahmed Eldayar
GOO
Brendon John Clapp
Daniel John Oakley
A Witness

For Preliminary Proceedings Application
Nazih Abbas

For Disputed Facts Hearing
Benjamin Michael Fama

Not before 11:30am
For Bail Application
Nicholas James White
Richard Francis Clarke

LAUNCESTON

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston

Before Justice Pearce
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am For Trial (Part Heard)
Darryl Scott Donohue

Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice Estcourt
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am For Trial (Part Heard)
Adrian John Hall

BURNIE
No list available at time of publication

______________________________________________________
(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, the case of JCS versus the State of Tasmania was presented before Chief Justice Blow. JCS, the appellant, sought to appeal a decision made by a lower court which had implications for their rights under the Australian Constitution. The state, represented by the Attorney-General, contested the appeal, arguing that the original decision was correctly made according to the law. The central legal issues revolved around the interpretation of constitutional rights and the extent to which they applied to the facts of this case. The court was required to determine whether the lower court's decision was in accordance with the law and whether it properly considered the appellant's constitutional arguments.

The court meticulously examined the submissions from both parties, focusing on the constitutional provisions and previous case law that might influence the outcome. Chief Justice Blow delivered a comprehensive analysis of the legal principles involved, considering both the text of the Constitution and relevant judicial interpretations. The court concluded that the lower court's decision was consistent with the law and appropriately considered the appellant's arguments. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and the original decision was upheld.

As a result of the court's reasoning, the final order was that the appeal by JCS against the decision of the lower court was dismissed. The lower court's decision was affirmed, and JCS was not granted the relief they sought based on their constitutional arguments.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established