Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Tuesday, 28 July 2015

SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA LAW LISTS FOR TUESDAY, 28 JULY 2015

HOBART
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Mention via video link
Jason Ralph Jay
Darren Michael Dobson
Aaron Henderson Gray

For Mention
CLC
Dallas John Eaves

For Preliminary Proceedings Application
Robyn Clare Pearce
Erin Jay Tyres

For Trial
Joseph Aaron Lattimer
(Part-Heard)

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice TENNENT
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:30 a.m.

For Trial

Leah Lesley Cannon

(Part-Heard)

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice PORTER
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15 p.m.
For Sentence
Christopher John Kringle

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice ESTCOURT
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:45 a.m.
For Application to Correct Sentence via video-link from Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Denis Ross Tringrove
Robin Glen Fahey

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice PORTER
Civil Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Hearing
Christopher Ian Benson and Ors
v
Doloraine Pty Ltd and Anor

Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice PEARCE
Civil Jurisdiction
4.15 p.m.
For Directions Hearings by video link from Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Graham Maitland Marshall
v
Retirement Benefits Fund Board

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 Justice ESTCOURT
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:45am For Application to Correct Sentence via video-link to Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Denis Ross Tringrove
Robin Glen Fahey

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
4.30pm for Directions Hearing by video link from Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Lokendra Singh

BURNIE
Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie before Justice Pearce
Criminal Jurisdiction

9.10 am for Trial (Part-Heard)
Mark Raymond Roland

Civil Jurisdiction
9.45am for Admission to the Legal Profession
Laine Gaffney

4.15pm for Directions Hearing by Video Link to Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Graham Maitland Marshall
v
Retirement Benefits Fund Board

For Motion to Review
Constable Jason Shaun Lyons
v
Benjamin Edward Bakes

______________________________________________________
(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 heard a variety of cases on Tuesday, 28 July 2015. Criminal cases were heard in both the Hobart and Launceston courts. Among the matters heard in the Hobart court was a mention via video link for Jason Ralph Jay, Darren Michael Dobson, and Aaron Henderson Gray. In Launceston, a directions hearing was held via video link for Lokendra Singh. Civil matters were also heard in both Hobart and Launceston, with a hearing for Christopher Ian Benson and others versus Doloraine Pty Ltd and another party taking place in the Hobart court.

The legal issues in these cases varied widely, encompassing criminal proceedings such as applications to correct sentences, mentions, and trials, as well as civil matters including directions hearings, motions to review, and hearings related to business disputes and professional admissions. The court was required to address issues pertaining to procedural fairness, the interpretation of statutes and legal precedents, and the application of legal principles to the specific facts of each case.

The reasoning of the court was not detailed in the extract, but it is likely that the judges considered the evidence presented, the legal arguments of the parties, and relevant case law to reach their decisions. Outcomes would depend on the specific issues in each case. For instance, in criminal matters, the court may have determined whether to proceed with trials, grant applications for sentence corrections, or address other procedural matters. In civil matters, the court would have considered the merits of the arguments presented by the parties regarding business disputes, admissions to the legal profession, and other civil claims.

No final orders were detailed in the extract, but it is expected that the court would have made decisions that either advanced the cases towards resolution or clarified the procedural steps required in each matter.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established