Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Monday, 16 December 2013 Summary

SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA LAW LISTS FOR MONDAY, 16 DECEMBER 2013

HOBART

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:45 a.m.
For Sentence
Ben James Cleary

10:00 a.m.
For Mention
SAJ

For Sentence
TMH

For Directions Hearing
David John Hurd

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice TENNENT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Mention
Jamie Gregory McCrossen

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
Not before 10:15 a.m.
For Submissions
Mark Daniel Woolley

Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice ESTCOURT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
In Court as In Chambers
For Bail Variation
Garry Maxwell Billinghurst

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
Civil Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
Interrogatories/Certificate of Readiness
Duggan
v
Gillett

LAUNCESTON
No list for Launceston

BURNIE
No list for Burnie
______________________________________________________
(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:

On 16 December 2013, several matters were scheduled for hearing at the Supreme Court of Tasmania. Ben James Cleary was listed for sentencing, while a mention was scheduled for SAJ. TMH was set for a directions hearing. David John Hurd was also scheduled for a mention, and Jamie Gregory McCrossen was listed for a hearing before Justice WOOD, not before 10:15 a.m. Mark Daniel Woolley had submissions scheduled, and Garry Maxwell Billinghurst had an application for bail variation. In civil jurisdiction, Duggan v Gillet was scheduled for interrogatories and a certificate of readiness.

The legal issues involved in these cases varied significantly, depending on the nature of the proceedings. For Ben James Cleary and SAJ, the court would need to determine the appropriate sentence based on the facts and circumstances of their respective cases. For TMH, the court would likely be focusing on the procedural aspects of the case, directing the parties on the next steps to take. David John Hurd's mention could involve a range of issues, from bail conditions to case management. For Jamie Gregory McCrossen, the nature of the hearing was not specified, but it could involve any number of criminal proceedings, from plea hearings to trial readiness. Mark Daniel Woolley's submissions would likely pertain to the substantive or procedural aspects of his case, depending on the context. Garry Maxwell Billinghurst's bail variation application would require the court to consider the current bail conditions and any changes in circumstances that might warrant a modification. In the civil case of Duggan v Gillet, the interrogatories and certificate of readiness would involve the court ensuring that the parties were prepared for the next stages of litigation.

The court's reasoning and outcome would depend on the specifics of each case. For Ben James Cleary and SAJ, the sentences would be based on the severity of the offence, the offender's criminal history, and any mitigating or aggravating factors. For TMH, the court would likely provide clear directions on the next procedural steps. The mention for David John Hurd would result in a decision based on the specific issues raised in the mention. Jamie Gregory McCrossen's hearing would result in a decision relevant to the nature of the hearing, which could range from a plea hearing to a trial readiness assessment. Mark Daniel Woolley's submissions would be evaluated in the context of the case, and the court would make a ruling based on the merits of the submissions. For Garry Maxwell Billinghurst, the court would assess the current bail conditions and the reasons for the variation application to determine if a modification was warranted. In Duggan v Gillet, the interrogatories and certificate of readiness would ensure that the parties were prepared for the next stages of litigation.

The final orders would vary depending on the outcome of each case. For Ben James Cleary and SAJ, the final orders would be the sentences imposed by the court. For TMH, the final orders would likely be directions for the next steps in the case. The mention for David John Hurd would result in orders relevant to the specific issues raised. Jamie Gregory McCrossen's hearing would result in orders pertinent to the nature of the hearing. Mark Daniel Woolley's submissions would result in a ruling that could impact the progression of his case. For Garry Maxwell Billinghurst, the final orders would either be the modification of bail conditions or the refusal to vary the conditions. In Duggan v Gillet, the final orders would likely be related to the next stages of litigation, ensuring that the parties were prepared.

Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Monday, 16 December 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established