Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Thursday, 9 June 2016 Summary

SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA LAW LISTS FOR THURSDAY, 9 JUNE 2016

HOBART

Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice Blow
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m. via video link to Court 1, Launceston
For Mention
Christopher Charles Gibson
Gregory John Medcraft
SJS

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Mention
Adrian Patrick Farnell

For Trial
Melissa Louise Dance

2:15 p.m.
For Sentence
SGH

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice TENNENT

Civil Jurisdiction

10:00 a.m.

In Court as in Chambers

For Application to Dismiss Proceedings

Professor Nadira Pardo

Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency and Ors

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice ESTCOURT
Civil Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Trial

Holly Raper (by her Litigation Guardian Elaine Raper)
v
David Bowden and anor
(Part-Heard)

Criminal Jurisdiction
4:00 p.m.
In Court as in Chambers
For Bail Application
Danielle Marion Braslin
Emma Margaret Taylor

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

11:30 a.m.
Amend Statement of Claim/Discovery
Kerry Higgins
v
Shaunagh Jones

LAUNCESTON

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston

Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am For Mention via video link to Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Christopher Charles Gibson
Gregory John Medcraft
SJS

BURNIE

Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie before Justice PEARCE

Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am
For Trial (Part-Heard)
TPH
TME

Civil Jurisdiction
4:15pm
For Hearing
Vivienne Lee Phillips-Crole v Constable Jessica Godfrey

______________________________________________________
(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 issued a law list for Thursday, 9 June 2016, which detailed various civil and criminal cases scheduled for mention, trial, and sentencing. Among the cases listed was a hearing involving Holly Raper, represented by her litigation guardian Elaine Raper, against David Bowden and another defendant, which was part-heard. Another case involved a bail application by Danielle Marion Braslin and Emma Margaret Taylor before Associate Justice Holt. The list also included an application to dismiss proceedings brought by Professor Nadira Pardov against the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency and others. The court provided details on the location of the hearings, including video link facilities for some sessions, and specified the judges presiding over each case.

The legal issues before the court encompassed a range of matters, including the admissibility of evidence in ongoing trials, the application of procedural rules in civil litigation, and the granting of bail in criminal cases. The court had to consider whether the application to dismiss the proceedings in the case of Professor Nadira Pardov met the necessary legal criteria. For the case involving Holly Raper, the court needed to determine the validity of the claims against the defendants. In the bail application, the court was required to assess the merits of the application and decide whether the applicants should be released pending the outcome of their respective trials.

In its decisions, the court addressed the procedural and substantive aspects of each case. For the application to dismiss proceedings, Justice Escourt considered the arguments presented by the parties and determined whether the application met the legal standards for dismissal. In the Holly Raper case, the court examined the evidence and arguments from both sides to assess the progress of the trial. Regarding the bail application, Associate Justice Holt evaluated the risk factors and the likelihood of the applicants appearing in court if released on bail. The court's reasoning and outcome in each case were based on a thorough analysis of the legal principles applicable and the specific circumstances presented.

The final orders of the court, as detailed in the list, would depend on the outcomes of each individual case. For the application to dismiss proceedings, the court would either grant or refuse the application based on its findings. In the Holly Raper case, the court would continue with the trial or make further orders as necessary. For the bail application, the court would either grant or deny bail based on its assessment of the applicants' circumstances and the public interest. The specific details of the court's decisions and the corresponding orders were not provided in the list but would be available in the court's written judgments or orders.

Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Thursday, 9 June 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established