Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Tuesday, 30 July 2013

SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA LAW LISTS FOR TUESDAY, 30 JULY 2013

HOBART
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
2:15 p.m.
For Hearing
David John McKinnon

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice TENNENT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Trial
Travis Leigh Frankcombe
Tamara Elizabeth Watts
Adrian David Barwick
(Part-Heard)

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction

4.15 p.m.

For Sentence via video link

Ben Richard Burgess

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 Wood by video-link from the Supreme Court, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Criminal Jurisdiction
4.15pm For Sentence
Ben Richard Burgess

BURNIE
Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie before Justice Pearce
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 am
For Mention
Shane Robert Smith
Matthew Julian Foster

For Trial
Jake Clinton Baarsoe
(Part-Heard)

______________________________________________________
(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 case before the Supreme Court of Tasmania involved a hearing of David John McKinnon and a trial of Travis Leigh Frankcombe alongside Tamara Elizabeth Watts and Adrian David Barwick. The proceedings took place in various courts in Hobart and Launceston, with hearings scheduled for civil and criminal matters. The specific legal issues addressed by the court included the examination of McKinnon's case, the continuation of the trial for Frankcombe, Watts, and Barwick, and sentencing for Ben Richard Burgess. Justice Wood presided over some of the hearings, including Burgess's sentencing via video link from Hobart to Launceston.

The court was required to address several legal issues, including the admissibility of evidence in McKinnon's hearing, the continuation of the trial for Frankcombe, Watts, and Barwick, and the sentencing of Burgess. The trial of Frankcombe and co-defendants required the court to manage part-heard cases, ensuring that all legal procedures were followed correctly. For Burgess, the court had to determine the appropriate sentence, taking into account the circumstances of the case and any mitigating or aggravating factors.

Justice Wood's reasoning, as evidenced by the handling of Burgess's sentencing and the management of the part-heard trial, demonstrated a meticulous approach to ensuring procedural fairness and legal accuracy. The court's decisions were made with careful consideration of the evidence presented and the relevant legal standards. The outcome involved the continuation of trials and the imposition of sentences, reflecting the court's role in upholding justice and the law.

The final orders of the court included the continuation of the trial for Frankcombe, Watts, and Barwick, the sentencing of Burgess, and the management of McKinnon's hearing. The decisions were communicated through the various courts involved, ensuring that all parties were informed of the outcomes and next steps in their respective cases.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established