Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Thursday, 3 July 2014

SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA LAW LISTS FOR THURSDAY, 3 JULY 2014

HOBART
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice PORTER
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Mention
Jess Aaron Morgan

For Sentence
Shaun Michael Kelly

For Plea
Mark William Ransley
(Part-Heard)

For Plea
Joseph Andrew Edwards

4:00 p.m.
For Sentence
Jacob Roger Dorloff

4.15 p.m.
For Sentence
Christopher John McDonald
Dean Andrew Mazey

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
In Court as in Chambers
9:15 a.m.
For Bail Application via video link to Magistrates Court, Griffith Street, Devonport
Madison Stuart Ansell

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice ESTCOURT
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:15 a.m.
For Trial
Stephen Roy Standage
(Part-Heard)

3.30pm
In Court as In Chambers
For Bail Application
Julius Nkundabanyanka
(Part-Heard)

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:00 p.m.
For Sentence via video-link from Court 1, Supreme Court, Launceston
KJS

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
Civil Jurisdiction
9:15 a.m. via video link to Launceston
Miscellaneous Civil Business

2:15 p.m.
Appointment of Trustee
De Jersey
v
De Jersey and Anor

4:00 p.m.
Directions Hearing by telephone
Crack
v
Schofield

4:15 p.m.
Directions Hearing by telephone
Boutcher
v
Motor Accidents Insurance Board

4:30 p.m.
For Mention
Gunns Finance Pty Ltd
v
Kuragamage

Gunns Finance Pty Ltd
v
Colvin

LAUNCESTON

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston

Before Justice Pearce
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am For Mention
Carl Maxwell Hall
Adam Maxwell Cox
Lokendra Singh
Luke James Reader
Stephen James Williams
Christina Vernessa Watson
Mark Paul Phillips
Leigh Prior

For Discharge
Robert James Seadon

4:00pm For Sentence
KJS
Brady Allan Pyke

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 range of criminal and civil matters were scheduled for various hearings on Thursday, 3 July 2014. The list included sentencing and plea hearings for several defendants, as well as bail applications and trial proceedings. For instance, Justice Porter was set to hear pleas and sentences for defendants including Jess Aaron Morgan, Shaun Michael Kelly, Mark William Ransley, Joseph Andrew Edwards, and Jacob Roger Dorloff. Additionally, there were trials and bail applications scheduled for other defendants, including Stephen Roy Standage and Julius Nkundabanyanka. Civil matters were also on the agenda, with Justice Holt presiding over appointments and directions hearings, such as those in the cases of De Jersey v De Jersey and Anor, Crack v Schofield, and Boutcher v Motor Accidents Insurance Board.

The legal issues that the court was required to address ranged from determining the appropriate sentences for defendants convicted of various crimes, to considering bail applications for those awaiting trial. In criminal cases, the court had to weigh evidence and arguments presented by both the prosecution and defence to determine the appropriate sentences. For bail applications, the court had to assess the risk of flight, the risk of reoffending, and the circumstances of each case to decide whether the defendant should be granted bail. In civil cases, the court had to make decisions regarding the appointment of trustees and provide directions in ongoing litigation, ensuring that the proceedings were managed efficiently and fairly.

The court's reasoning and outcomes in these cases would depend on the specific facts and legal arguments presented. In criminal cases, the court would consider the severity of the offence, the defendant's criminal history, and any mitigating or aggravating factors. The outcome would be a sentence that reflects the court's assessment of the appropriate punishment. For bail applications, the court would consider the evidence and arguments presented by both the prosecution and the defence to determine whether the defendant meets the criteria for bail. In civil cases, the court's decisions would be based on the legal principles and evidence presented, ensuring that the parties' rights and interests are protected.

The final orders in these cases would reflect the court's decisions on the specific legal issues presented. In criminal cases, the final orders would include the sentences imposed on the defendants. For bail applications, the final orders would either grant or refuse bail to the defendant. In civil cases, the final orders would include the appointment of trustees and directions for the management of the proceedings. These orders would be communicated to the parties involved and would guide the next steps in each case.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established