SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA LAW LISTS FOR MONDAY, 27 JULY 2015
HOBART
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
For Trial
9:30 a.m.
Dawn Ruth Flower
Robin Thomas Flower
(Part-Heard)
10:00 a.m.
For Mention
Shayden James Cowen
For Preliminary Proceedings Application
David Luke Pearson
For Bail Consent
Stephen Paul Hamilton
For Trial
Joseph Aaron Lattimer
2:15 p.m.
For Sentence
Wayne Michael Lang
Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice TENNENT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Mention
Steven John Brear
Dean Phillip Braslin
JSWR
For Trial
Leah Lesley Cannon
(Part-Heard)
Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice Porter
Civil Jurisdiction
In Court as in Chambers
9:45 a.m.
For Application
Peter John Leary and Anor
v
Lipscombe Child Care Services Inc
In Court
10:00 a.m.
For Trial
Craig Andrew O’Neill
v
Natasha Rhodes
(Part-Heard)
LAUNCESTON
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice ESTCOURT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am For Mention
Steven John Barr
Paul John Warren
For Trial
MNH
Criminal Jurisdiction
In Court as in Chambers
4:00pm For Bail Application via video-link to Risdon Prison Complex
JSKRM
To Follow For Bail Application
Ramon Williams
Tyson Lee Hannah
BURNIE
Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie before Justice Pearce
Criminal Jurisdiction
10am for Mention
Nicholas Mark Anderson
For Trial
Mark Raymond Roland
4.15pm for Sentence
Mark Adrian Wicks
______________________________________________________
(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:
- AGLC
- Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Monday, 27 July 2015 [2015] TASSCCourtlist 153
- Case
- [2015] TASSCCourtlist 153
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues addressed in the various cases likely ranged from the admissibility of evidence in criminal trials to the interpretation of contractual obligations in civil proceedings. Each case would have required the court to navigate specific legal principles relevant to the nature of the dispute, such as the rules of evidence, criminal law statutes, or contract law. The outcome of each case would have hinged on how these legal issues were interpreted and applied by the respective judges.
The reasoning and outcomes of the cases would have been detailed in the court's written judgments or orders, which would be available for review by the parties involved and legal practitioners. These judgments would provide clarity on how the court resolved the specific legal issues raised in each case, offering guidance for future similar matters. The final orders would reflect the court's determination on the merits of each case, including any sentences, compensation, or other remedies awarded.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.