SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA LAW LISTS FOR THURSDAY, 20 DECEMBER 2012
HOBART
Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice EVANS
Criminal Jurisdiction
10.00 a.m.
For Mention
Christopher David Benjamine Wilton
In Court as in Chambers
Bail Application
Brett Julian Robinson-Stacey
Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice PORTER
Criminal Jurisdiction
2.15 pm
For Sentence
Emily Michelle Afa
Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
11.30 a.m.
For Sentence by video link to Burnie
Cyrus Francis Halfacre
Civil Jurisdiction
11.30 a.m.
For Judgment
R
v
Andrea Martine Haley and Davies Brothers Pty Ltd
In Chambers, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice TENNENT
Civil Jurisdiction
10.30 a.m.
For Judgment
Narelle Willcocks
v
Djaan Heathcote
LAUNCESTON
Before Chief Justice Crawford
Criminal Jurisdiction
In Court As In Chambers
3.00pm For Bail Variation
Gary James Harper
Luke Anthony Shaw
BURNIE
Court 1, Alexander Street Burnie before Justice Wood
Criminal Jurisdiction
11.30 a.m. For Sentence (by Video Link from Hobart)
Cyrus Francis Halfacre
_______________________________________________________
(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, 20 December 2012 [2012] TASSCCourtlist 251
- Case
- [2012] TASSCCourtlist 251
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine the bail application for Wilton, considering the circumstances of the case and the potential risks associated with granting or denying bail. For Robinson-Stacey, the court needed to decide an appropriate sentence, taking into account the nature and circumstances of the offence, as well as any mitigating or aggravating factors. The court also needed to determine an appropriate sentence for Afa, with considerations given to the principles of sentencing and any relevant mitigating or aggravating factors.
The court's reasoning and outcome for each case were not provided in the document. However, it is expected that the court would have considered the relevant legal principles, evidence, and arguments presented by the parties involved in each case when making its decisions. The final orders for each case, including any bail decisions, sentences, or judgments, would have been communicated to the parties involved.
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.