Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Thursday, 21 January 2016

SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA LAW LISTS FOR THURSDAY, 21 JANUARY 2016

HOBART

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice TENNENT
Civil Jurisdiction

In Court as in Chambers

10.00 a.m.

For Hearing

Legal Profession Board of Tasmania

A Legal Practitioner

Criminal Jurisdiction
In Court as In Chambers

12.00 p.m.

For Application to Revoke Bail

Via video link to Court 1, Launceston

Aaron Michael Marks

To Follow
For Bail Application
Melita Joanne Matepi
Jason John Dolan

LAUNCESTON

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice TENNENT
Criminal Jurisdiction

In Court as In Chambers
12.00 p.m.
For Application to Revoke Bail
Via video link to Court 7, Hobart
Aaron Michael Marks

BURNIE

No Law 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

The Supreme Court of Tasmania heard two matters on 21 January 2016, one civil and one criminal. The civil matter, heard by Justice Tennent in Court 7 in Hobart, involved an application by the Legal Profession Board of Tasmania against a legal practitioner. The specific nature of the dispute between the Legal Profession Board and the legal practitioner was not detailed in the court list. The criminal matter, also heard by Justice Tennent in Launceston, involved an application to revoke bail in the case of Aaron Michael Marks, who was to appear via video link from Hobart.

The legal issues before the court in the civil matter pertained to the conduct of the legal practitioner and whether it warranted any disciplinary action or other remedy by the Legal Profession Board. For the criminal matter, the court had to consider whether there were sufficient grounds to revoke the bail of Aaron Michael Marks, which would involve determining if there had been a breach of bail conditions or if new information had emerged that would justify such a decision.

Justice Tennent, in the civil case, would have needed to review the evidence and submissions from both the Legal Profession Board and the legal practitioner to make a determination on the appropriate course of action. In the criminal case concerning Aaron Michael Marks, the judge would have examined the application for bail revocation, considering any new evidence or breaches of conditions presented by the prosecution, and balanced this against the rights of the accused as per the Bail Act. The outcomes of these hearings were not detailed in the court list, but they would have resulted in either a decision on the disciplinary action against the legal practitioner or a determination on the bail status of Aaron Michael Marks.

No further orders were noted in the court list for the matters heard on this day. The decisions made would have immediate implications for the legal practitioner in the civil case and for Aaron Michael Marks in the criminal case, depending on the findings of the court.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established