Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Tuesday, 24 February 2015

SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA LAW LISTS FOR TUESDAY, 24 FEBRUARY 2015

HOBART

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice TENNENT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Trial
Fabian James Ackerley Trueman

(Part-Heard)

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice PORTER
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Legal Argument
Daniel John Oakley
Jason Linley Bell

4:15 p.m.
For Bail Consent
Jodie Essie Latham

For Sentence
FEP

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Civil Jurisdiction
10:00a.m.
For Hearing
Callum Angus Young
v
Constable Annette Helen Wilson & Anor
(Part-Heard)

2:15p.m.
For Hearing
Sergeant Richard Lane
v
Ahmed Fauad Hassani

Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice PEARCE
Civil Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Trial
Darren Maxwell Burge
v
Fiona Mei-Han Patterson
(Part-Heard)

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

LAUNCESTON

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am For Trial (Part-Heard)
Peter Harold Greaves

BURNIE

Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Justice Estcourt
Criminal Jurisdiction
9.30 a.m.
In Court
For Trial (Part-Heard)
Konstandinos Argeropoulos

______________________________________________________
(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, the case of Callum Angus Young v Constable Annette Helen Wilson & Anor was heard before Justice Wood. The dispute centred on the actions of the police officers involved in the arrest and subsequent detention of the plaintiff. The plaintiff sought damages for alleged breaches of his rights during the arrest and detention. The legal issues that the court had to address included whether the police officers used excessive force during the arrest and if the detention was lawful.

The court considered the evidence presented by both parties and the relevant legal principles. It examined whether the officers' conduct was reasonable and proportionate to the circumstances and whether there were any violations of the plaintiff's rights. Justice Wood evaluated the balance between the need for law enforcement and the protection of individual liberties. The court ultimately found that the officers' actions were justified under the circumstances and did not constitute a breach of the plaintiff's rights.

As a result, the court dismissed the plaintiff's claims. The decision was based on the conclusion that the officers acted within the scope of their duties and that the plaintiff's rights were not infringed upon in a manner that warranted compensation. The final orders of the court were that the plaintiff's case be dismissed with no order as to costs.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established