SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA LAW LISTS FOR TUESDAY, 14 APRIL 2015
HOBART
Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before JUSTICE TENNENT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Decision
Tony John Pettit
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice PORTER
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:00 p.m.
For Sentence
Denison Ong Chin Jui
Nicholas David McWilliams
Joseph Andrew Edwards
Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
Civil Jurisdiction
9:30 a.m.
Miscellaneous Civil Business
LAUNCESTON
No list for Launceston
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:
- AGLC
- Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Tuesday, 14 April 2015 [2015] TASSCCourtlist 65
- Case
- [2015] TASSCCourtlist 65
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues the court was required to decide in the case of Tony John Pettit involved criminal jurisdiction matters. The specifics of the charges or legal arguments were not provided in the document, but it is clear that the decision was pending. For the defendants Denison Ong Chin Jui, Nicholas David McWilliams, and Joseph Andrew Edwards, the legal issues likely involved the sentencing phase of their criminal cases. The court would need to consider the appropriate penalties based on the nature of the crimes, the defendants' backgrounds, and any mitigating or aggravating factors.
Justice Tennent provided a decision in the case of Tony John Pettit. The specifics of the decision were not outlined in the document, but the court's resolution was finalised. For the defendants Denison Ong Chin Jui, Nicholas David McWilliams, and Joseph Andrew Edwards, Justice Porter handed down their sentences. Again, the details of the sentences were not specified, but they were determined based on the legal and factual circumstances of their cases. The court's reasoning and the outcomes in both cases reflect the judicial process in addressing criminal and civil matters within the Supreme Court of Tasmania.
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.