Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Tuesday, 18 August 2015

Case [2015] TASSCCourtlist 175


SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA LAW LISTS FOR TUESDAY, 18 AUGUST 2015

AMENDED LIST FOR HOBART

HOBART
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before the COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
10:00 a.m.
For Hearing
Director of Public Prosecutions
v
Ian Rushton

For Hearing
Benjamin Michael Fama
v
State of Tasmania

Before Chief Justice BLOW

Criminal Jurisdiction
9:55 a.m.
For Mention
Aaron Henderson Gray

4:00 p.m.
For Sentence

Nigel Keith Davie
Cody Lucas Cowley
Dallas John Eaves

For Application
Yared Ayana Gebreselassie

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice PORTER
Criminal Jurisdiction
In Court as in Chambers
10.30 a.m.
For Bail Application
David Edward Wright

2:15 p.m.
For Bail Application
Kayla Jayne Noye

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice PEARCE

Criminal Jurisdiction
10.00 a.m.
For Mention by video link to Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Damian Wesley Marshall

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobrt
Before Associate justice HOLT
Civil Jurisdiction
9:30 a.m.
Miscellaneous Civil Business

LAUNCESTON

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston

Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am For Mention via video-link from Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Damian Wesley Marshall

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:

Details
AGLC
Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Tuesday, 18 August 2015 [2015] TASSCCourtlist 175
Case
[2015] TASSCCourtlist 175
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of Tasmania listed several cases for hearing on 18 August 2015. The Court of Criminal Appeal was scheduled to hear the case of the Director of Public Prosecutions versus Ian Rushton at 10:00 a.m. The same day, the court was also scheduled to hear the case of Benjamin Michael Fama versus the State of Tasmania at 9:55 a.m. Further, Nigel Keith Davie, Cody Lucas Cowley, and Dallas John Eaves were scheduled for sentencing at 4:00 p.m. Additionally, Justice Porter was scheduled to hear bail applications from David Edward Wright and Kayla Jayne Noye at 10:30 a.m. and 2:15 p.m., respectively. The court was also scheduled to hear a case via video link from Launceston.

The legal issues in these cases varied. In the case of the Director of Public Prosecutions versus Ian Rushton, the court was required to determine whether the defendant was guilty of the charges laid against him. In the case of Benjamin Michael Fama versus the State of Tasmania, the court was required to determine whether the defendant's rights were violated during his arrest and detention. In the cases of Nigel Keith Davie, Cody Lucas Cowley, and Dallas John Eaves, the court was required to determine the appropriate sentence for each defendant based on the charges they faced. Finally, in the cases of David Edward Wright and Kayla Jayne Noye, the court was required to determine whether the applicants were eligible for bail.

The court's reasoning and outcome were not provided in the text. However, it is noted that the court was scheduled to hear these cases on the specified date. Therefore, it is likely that the court heard the cases and made decisions based on the legal issues presented. The final orders of the court were not provided in the text. However, it is likely that the court made orders in accordance with the decisions it made.

In summary, the Supreme Court of Tasmania listed several cases for hearing on 18 August 2015. The legal issues in these cases varied, and the court was required to determine various matters based on the charges and circumstances of each case. The court's reasoning and outcome were not provided in the text, but it is likely that the court made decisions based on the legal issues presented. The final orders of the court were not provided in the text, but it is likely that the court made orders in accordance with its decisions.

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.