Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Monday, 23 April 2012

SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA LAW LISTS FOR MONDAY, 23 APRIL 2012

HOBART LIST
Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice Porter
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 am
For Mention
TCT
Patrick Arthur Burling

For Trial
Anthony Colin Finnegan
(part-heard)

4:15 pm
For Sentence
TCB
Jan Kikkert

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
Civil Jurisdiction
10.30 a.m.
Graham John Murray
V
Motor Accidents Insurance Board
Extend Time

LAUNCESTON

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston

Before Justice Evans

Criminal Jurisdiction
10.00am Mention
Melissa Jayne Gibbons

For Trial (Part-Heard)
Sean Timothy Hudson
Neville Lindsay Whiting

Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston

Before Justice Wood

Civil Jurisdiction
10.00am For Trial
Bellenjuc Pty. Ltd. v. Kentish Council

BURNIE
Court 1, Alexander Street Burnie before Chief Justice Crawford

10.00 am For Mention
Michael Anthony Jones
Trent James Jones
BPMH
To Follow For Trial
Joshua James Wilkinson

3.00 pm For Plea
SEWL

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's law lists for Monday, 23 April 2012, included a variety of civil and criminal cases across different locations. In Hobart, Justice Porter presided over criminal and civil matters, including the mention of a case involving Patrick Arthur Burling and a part-heard trial for Anthony Colin Finnegan. Meanwhile, Associate Justice Holt was set to handle a civil case involving Graham John Murray versus the Motor Accidents Insurance Board in Launceston. Further north in Burnie, Chief Justice Crawford was scheduled to handle a mention for a case involving Michael Anthony Jones, with a trial to follow. These listings reflect the diverse nature of cases being dealt with by the Supreme Court of Tasmania on that date.

The legal issues to be addressed by the court ranged from criminal trials to civil disputes over insurance claims and local council matters. In the criminal sphere, the court faced decisions about the continuation of trials, sentencing, and the handling of part-heard cases. On the civil side, the court was tasked with extending time limits for certain cases and managing disputes between individuals and insurance boards. These issues highlight the court's role in both criminal and civil justice, dealing with a spectrum of legal challenges from personal disputes to broader public concerns.

The court's reasoning and outcomes for each case would depend on the specific legal arguments presented and the evidence provided during the proceedings. For criminal cases, the court would have considered the prosecution's evidence and the defence's arguments, applying relevant laws and legal precedents to determine guilt or innocence and appropriate sentences. In civil cases, the focus would have been on interpreting the law as it applies to the specific circumstances of the dispute, including whether to grant extensions and the merits of the claims made by the parties involved. The final outcomes would be documented in court records, providing a legal resolution to each matter before the court.

The final orders for each case, as decided by the court, would be recorded and communicated to the parties involved. These orders would reflect the court's decisions on matters such as the continuation of trials, sentencing, time extensions, and the resolution of disputes. Each case's outcome would be based on the legal principles and evidence presented, ensuring that justice is served according to the law.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established