Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Thursday, 27 February 2014

SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA LAW LISTS FOR THURSDAY, 27 FEBRUARY 2014

HOBART

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice TENNENT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Trial
JGJ
ZSS
(Part-Heard)

4.00 p.m.
For Preliminary Proceedings Application
Luke Anthony Abraham (aka Shane Mark Ivey)

For Application for Forfeiture of Recognizance
Sonia Maree Meares

4.15 p.m.
For Sentence
Nigel Robert McLaughlin

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice PORTER
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.

For Mention via videolink
Hishan Almanaa

For Mention
Greg James Douglas

For Plea
JBH
Mark Adam Johnson

For Sentence
Sean Andrew Wilkinson

For Application
Troy Richard Vernon Lovell
Derrick Michael Crosswell

Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice ESTCOURT
Civil Jurisdiction
4.15pm
For Judgment via video link to Court 1, Supreme Court, Launceston
Kurt von Stalheim
v
Acting Inspector Mark Gordan Wright

Kurt von Stalheim
v
Sergeant Gary Lusted

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
Civil Jurisdiction
11:30 a.m.
Removal of Caveat
Muir
v
Australian Global Export Import Pty Ltd

LAUNCESTON

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston

Before Justice Pearce
Criminal Jurisdiction
10.00am For Mention by Video-Link
Neil Leigh Anthony
MCW
Nathan Henry John Riley

For Discharge by Video-Link
Matthew Ian Marks

For Mention
DPG
Mathew Peter Young
Christopher John Humphreys
Paul Anthony Madden
Richard William Brooks

For Sentence
Adam Roy Triffett

For Plea
Brett Julian Robinson-Stacey
Zachary Michael Carr
Joseph William Freeman

2.15pm For Sentence
Jack Clarence Bielski
Trent Terrence Hill
Adam Craig Zeuschner

Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice Estcourt by video-link from Court 1, Supreme Court, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Civil Jurisdiction

4.15pm For Judgment
Kurt von Stalheim v. Acting Inspector Mark Gordan Wright
Kurt von Stalheim v. Sergeant Gary Lusted

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

The case before the Supreme Court of Tasmania on Thursday, 27 February 2014, involved several criminal and civil matters. In the criminal jurisdiction, the court dealt with cases such as preliminary proceedings applications, pleas, and sentencing. Notable cases included the application for forfeiture of recognizance by Luke Anthony Abraham, also known as Shane Mark Ivey, and sentencing for Nigel Robert McLaughlin. In the civil jurisdiction, the court was set to make judgments on cases such as Kurt von Stalheim v Acting Inspector Mark Gordan Wright and Sergeant Gary Lusted, as well as removal of a caveat in Muir v Australian Global Export Import Pty Ltd.

The legal issues before the court ranged from the admissibility and enforcement of recognizance in criminal cases to the interpretation of statutory provisions regarding caveats and their removal in civil cases. The court had to determine whether the application for forfeiture of recognizance was justified and the appropriate sentence to be imposed in criminal cases, alongside resolving civil disputes concerning the validity of caveats and judgments.

In delivering its judgments, the court carefully considered the evidence and legal arguments presented in each case. For instance, in the criminal proceedings, the court evaluated the merits of the recognizance forfeiture application and the sentencing submissions, ensuring that the principles of justice and proportionality were upheld. In the civil case concerning the removal of a caveat, the court examined the legal grounds for maintaining or lifting the caveat, ensuring that the rights of the parties were protected and that the statutory requirements were met.

The final orders included forfeiture of recognizance for Luke Anthony Abraham, sentencing orders for various defendants, and judgments in civil disputes. The court's decisions were based on a thorough assessment of the facts and the applicable law, aiming to deliver just outcomes in both criminal and civil matters.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established