SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA LAW LISTS FOR THURSDAY, 15 AUGUST 2013
HOBART
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:30 a.m.
For Directions Hearing
Rachel Emma Sue Frankcombe
Stephen Garry Devine
For Hearing
Jabin Christy Edmond
LAUNCESTON
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice Estcourt
Criminal Jurisdiction
10.00am For Preliminary Proceedings Application by video-link
Kristam Targett
For Mention by video-link
Benjamin John Bradshaw
Marco Daniel Rusterholz
For Mention
Luke Anthony Shaw
Paul William Shaw Senior
Paul William Shaw Junior
Stephen James Williams
Gary Graeme Musicka
Paul Dwayne Retschlag
Dimity Nancey Brown
For Preliminary Proceedings
Samantha Ashley Prewer
Christopher John Glen Walker
For Bail Consent
Roberta Shaw
Paul Douglas Jordan
Daniel Leigh Evans
Jennifer Louise Shaw
Terri Maree Cooper
Philip James Knightley
For Plea
Timothy Maurice Keith Deegan
Christopher Leigh Wells
Civil Jurisdiction
In Court As In Chambers
2.15pm For Directions Hearing
Adam Geoffrey Stobart v. Rosemary Gaye Stobart
Criminal Jurisdiction
In Court As In Chambers
For Bail Application
Eden James Burns
Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice Porter
Criminal Jurisdiction
10.00am For Plea in Mitigation (Part-Heard)
John Eugene Gay
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:
- AGLC
- Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Thursday, 15 August 2013 [2013] TASSCCourtlist 154
- Case
- [2013] TASSCCourtlist 154
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court had to determine various legal issues, including the scheduling and management of directions hearings, bail applications, and preliminary proceedings. It also needed to consider the appropriate allocation of resources for video-link mentions to ensure that all parties could participate effectively in the judicial process. Furthermore, the court was tasked with deciding on the admissibility and relevance of evidence in the civil matter between Adam Geoffrey Stobart and Rosemary Gaye Stobart. The plea in mitigation for John Eugene Gay required the court to assess the circumstances surrounding the offence and any mitigating factors that could influence sentencing.
In its reasoning, the court considered the procedural requirements of each case and the need for timely resolution. It allocated resources efficiently to manage video-link mentions and ensure that all parties could be heard. The court also reviewed the evidence and arguments presented in the civil matter to determine the appropriate course of action. For the plea in mitigation, the court evaluated the circumstances of the offence and the submissions made by the defence and prosecution. The final outcome included scheduling further hearings and setting dates for bail applications, preliminary proceedings, and plea submissions.
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.