Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Monday, 23 March 2015

SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA LAW LISTS FOR MONDAY, 23 MARCH 2015

HOBART

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW

Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Mention
Dylan Keith Knight
Brodie Jean Self
BJC
Mahad Ahmed Mohamud
Zachary Nathaniel Galpin
Darrel George Harrington

For Bail Consent
RJH

For Trial
Garry Maxwell Billinghurst
(Part-Heard)

4:00 p.m.
For Bail Variation
Matthew John Davey

For Bail Application
Michael Douglas Starling

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice PORTER
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Mention
Tanya Maree Silva
Ethan Scott Cooper

For Trial
Joseph Andrew Edwards
Denison Ong Chin Jui
Nicholas David McWilliams

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice ESTCOURT
Civil Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Trial
Troy Leslie Eirth
v
Geoffrey Arthur Spaulding
(Part-Heard)

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
Civil Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
Renew Writ
Duff
v
Gott and Ors

LAUNCESTON
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
10.00am For Trial (Part Heard)
Marco Daniel Rusterholz

4.15pm For Decision
Kane Jae Denney
v
Sergeant Gary Lusted

Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice TENNENT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am For Mention
Michael John Hess
Stewart Robert McLean
Benjamin Shay Hosking
Kaitlyn Amy Megan Lockwood

To Follow For Trial
John Benjamin Adams
Jacquelaine Anne McCullagh

4:15pm For Plea
Codie Ken Fazackerley

BURNIE
Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie before Justice Wood
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Mention
Mark Anthony Mason
Michael James Bunch

For Trial
Jamie Laurence Carrick

______________________________________________________
(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 several cases on 23 March 2015, including criminal and civil matters. In the criminal jurisdiction, cases were heard in Hobart and Launceston, involving individuals such as Dylan Keith Knight and Brodie Jean Self, as well as more serious cases like those of Marco Daniel Rusterholz and Kane Jae Denney. The civil jurisdiction also had cases listed, with proceedings involving parties such as Troy Leslie Eirth and Geoffrey Arthur Spaulding in Hobart, and Duff and Gott in Launceston. The court's schedule included mentions, bail applications, trials, and decisions, reflecting the range of legal issues being addressed.

The legal issues before the court encompassed various aspects of criminal and civil law. In the criminal cases, the court had to decide on bail applications, consent to bail variations, and trials, which involved interpreting the applicable laws and considering the evidence and arguments presented. The civil cases likely involved disputes over contractual obligations, property rights, or other civil matters, requiring the court to apply relevant legal principles and precedents to reach a decision.

The court's reasoning and outcome would have been based on a detailed examination of the evidence and legal arguments presented by the parties. For criminal cases, the court would have considered factors such as the severity of the alleged offence, the likelihood of the accused appearing in court if released on bail, and any mitigating or aggravating circumstances. In civil cases, the court would have assessed the merits of the claims and defences, applying the relevant statutory and common law principles to determine the rights and obligations of the parties. The court's decisions would have been based on a thorough analysis of the legal issues, ensuring that justice was served according to the law.

The final orders of the court would have been communicated to the parties involved, outlining the court's decisions on bail, pleas, and trial outcomes. In criminal cases, the court might have granted or denied bail, set dates for further hearings, or proceeded with trials. In civil cases, the court would have ruled on the claims and defences, potentially awarding damages, ordering specific performance, or dismissing the proceedings. The orders would have provided clarity and direction for the parties, setting the stage for any subsequent legal actions or appeals.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established