Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Friday, 29 November 2013

SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA LAW LISTS FOR FRIDAY, 29 NOVEMBER 2013

HOBART
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice TENNENT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Mention
Tanya Maree Silva
Mathew Charles Mogford
Brodie John Self
Darrel George Harington
Kris Oliver Powell
Craig Aaron Castle
Peter Stephen Bomford

For Trial
Denis Ross Tringrove
Robin Glen Fahey
(Part-Heard)

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Directions
PFC
For Trial
Gary Robert Greig
Robert George Greig
(Part-Heard)

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice PORTER
Civil Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Hearing
Sergeant Richard Lane
v
David Charles Parish

LAUNCESTON
No list available at time of publication

BURNIE
Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie before Chief Justice Blow
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Trial
David Michael Hall

______________________________________________________
(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 several cases for hearing on 29 November 2013. The cases included both criminal and civil matters, with trials, mentions, and directions scheduled. The criminal cases involved a variety of defendants, including Tanya Maree Silva, Mathew Charles Mogford, Brodie John Self, and others, with some cases being part-heard. The civil case listed involved Sergeant Richard Lane against David Charles Parish. The Launceston and Burnie courts did not have publicly available lists at the time of publication.

The legal issues in these cases likely involved a range of criminal charges, including serious offences such as drug trafficking and violent crimes. The civil case might have involved disputes over property, personal injury, or contractual matters. The court was required to decide on the admissibility of evidence, the interpretation of relevant laws, and the appropriate legal outcomes based on the facts presented. In the criminal cases, the court would have considered the prosecution's evidence, the defence arguments, and the legal principles applicable to each offence. In the civil case, the court would have assessed the claims and counterclaims, applying relevant legal principles to determine the rights and obligations of the parties.

The reasoning and outcome of the cases would have been based on the evidence presented and the applicable law. The court would have considered the credibility of witnesses, the weight of the evidence, and the legal standards required to prove the allegations or claims. The outcomes would have varied depending on the specific facts and the arguments made by the parties. Some cases might have resulted in convictions or acquittals, while others might have been adjourned for further evidence or legal argument. The court's decisions would have been communicated to the parties and their legal representatives.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established