Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Monday, 29 February 2016

SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA LAW LISTS FOR MONDAY, 29 FEBRUARY 2016

HOBART
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before the COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
2:15 p.m.
For Hearing
Leigh Anthony Sweetman
v
The State of Tasmania

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:30 a.m.
For Sentence
Paivi Irmeli Basham

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice ESTCOURT
Civil Jurisdiction
In Court as in Chambers
9:30 a.m.
For Directions Hearing

Holly Raper (by her Litigation Guardian Elaine Raper)
v
David Bowden and anor

LAUNCESTON
No law 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:

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Tasmania, a matter involving Leigh Anthony Sweetman and the State of Tasmania was scheduled for hearing before the Court of Criminal Appeal. The nature of the dispute involved the appeal of Mr Sweetman against a decision made by a lower court, which details are not provided in the extract. Another matter involving Paivi Irmeli Basham was scheduled for sentencing, indicating a final determination of penalties following a conviction. Additionally, a civil matter between Holly Raper, represented by her litigation guardian Elaine Raper, and David Bowden and another party was set for directions, suggesting an early stage in the litigation process where the court would outline procedural steps.

The legal issues in these cases likely encompassed the scope and validity of the appeal in the criminal case, the appropriate sentencing guidelines and considerations in the case of Ms Basham, and the procedural directions needed in the civil litigation involving Ms Raper. The court had to ensure that the appeal process adhered to legal standards, that the sentencing was fair and in line with relevant laws, and that the civil case was progressing appropriately.

The court's reasoning and outcome in these cases would have been determined based on the specific facts and legal arguments presented. For Mr Sweetman's appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeal would have reviewed the lower court's decision to determine if there were any errors in law or procedure. In the sentencing of Ms Basham, Justice ESTCOURT would have considered factors such as the nature of the offence, the circumstances of the case, and any mitigating or aggravating factors. In the civil case, directions would have been given to ensure the litigation process moved forward efficiently and effectively.

In the civil case, final orders would likely include specific instructions on the procedural steps to be taken by the parties, such as the exchange of evidence, scheduling of hearings, and other necessary actions to progress the case.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established