SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA LAW LISTS FOR TUESDAY, 29 OCTOBER 2013
HOBART
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Mention
Dwight Stanley Murtagh
Shane Paul Bennett
For Trial
Daniel Sean Pennicott
(Part Heard)
Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice TENNENT
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:30 a.m.
For Trial
Tu Ai Lin
(Part-Heard)
Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
2:15 p.m. via video link to Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
For Mention
Shaun Keverall Kaye
For Sentence
Wayne Marcus Riley
Stephen John Peters
Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
Civil Jurisdiction
9:30 a.m.
Miscellaneous Civil Business
4:00 p.m.
Amend Statement of Claim/Reasons for decision
Etter
v
State of Tasmania
LAUNCESTON
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice Wood by Video-Link from Supreme Court, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Criminal Jurisdiction
2.15pm For Mention
Shaun Keverall Kaye
For Sentence
Stephen John Peters
Wayne Marcus Riley
BURNIE
Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie before Justice Porter
Criminal Jurisdiction
9.45 a.m.
For Sentence
DSG
10:00 a.m.
For Mention via video link
Justin Roy John Roughley
For Mention
Jason Theo MacMillan
Ashlea Maree Rigby
For Bail Consent
ZRP
For Trial (part-heard)
JWB
4:00 p.m.
For Sentence
Barry Grant Ralston
4:15 p.m.
For Directions
Adrian Wayne Smillie
______________________________________________________
(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, 29 October 2013 [2013] TASSCCourtlist 226
- Case
- [2013] TASSCCourtlist 226
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court included the handling of a part-heard trial for Daniel Sean Pennicott, the sentencing of Stephen John Peters and Wayne Marcus Riley, and various mentions and bail applications. The court was required to decide on the procedural aspects of ongoing trials, the appropriate sentences for convicted defendants, and the outcomes of bail applications. In the civil jurisdiction, the court also had an amendment to a statement of claim and reasons for decision in the case of Etter versus the State of Tasmania, which was set for a hearing in Launceston before Justice Wood via video link from Hobart.
The court's reasoning and outcomes for the listed cases were not detailed in the provided text. However, it is clear that the court was to address the procedural and substantive issues in each case, ensuring that legal rights and obligations were properly considered. The final orders for each case would be determined based on the specific legal issues presented and the evidence and arguments provided during the hearings.
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.