Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Tuesday, 31 March 2015

SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA LAW LISTS FOR TUESDAY, 31 MARCH 2015

HOBART

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice PORTER
Criminal Jurisdiction
In Court
9:30 a.m.
For Trial
Denison Ong Chin Jui
Nicholas David McWilliams
Joseph Andrew Edwards
(Part Heard)

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice PORTER
Criminal Jurisdiction
In Court as in Chambers
4:00 p.m.
For Bail Application
RDG

In Court
4:15 p.m.
For Mention via video-link to Risdon Prison Complex
David John Hurd

Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD

Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Bail Consent
Phillip William Langford

For Plea
Jamie Laurence Carrick

2:15 p.m.
For Sentence via video link to Supreme Court, Alexander Street, Burnie
Justin Raynor Bott

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 PEARCE

Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am For Trial (Part-Heard)
Marco Daniel Rusterholz

Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice TENNENT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am For Trial (Part-Heard)
GCS

4:15pm For Plea
Codie Ken Fazackerley

BURNIE
Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie before Justice Wood
Criminal Jurisdiction
2:15 p.m.
For Sentence (via video link from Court 2, Supreme Court, Hobart)
Justin Raynor Bott

______________________________________________________
(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, sitting in Hobart, heard a series of criminal and civil cases on Tuesday, 31 March 2015. Among the matters before the court was a trial for three defendants, Denison Ong Chin Jui, Nicholas David McWilliams, and Joseph Andrew Edwards. This case was heard in Court 8 at Salamanca Place. Another case involved a bail application for an individual named RDG, heard in Court 9, also at Salamanca Place, and a mention for David John Hurd via video-link from Risdon Prison Complex. In Launceston, Justice Pearce presided over a part-heard trial for Marco Daniel Rusterholz in Court 1 on Cameron Street. Further down the line, Justice Tennant heard another part-heard trial for a defendant identified as GCS in Court 2 on the same street. Sentencing was scheduled for Justin Raynor Bott, who appeared via video link from Burnie to Court 1 in Alexander Street, Burnie.

The legal issues before the court ranged from the admissibility of evidence and procedural fairness in ongoing trials to bail applications and sentencing considerations. The court had to ensure that the trials proceeded in accordance with legal standards, that bail applications were assessed on their merits and risks, and that sentencing was proportionate and appropriate to the crimes committed. Each case required careful consideration of the facts, the law, and the rights of the accused.

The court's reasoning and outcome would have been detailed in the judgments delivered during the proceedings. Justice Porter presided over the criminal trials and bail applications, ensuring that the defendants' rights were upheld and that the state's interest in prosecuting crime was balanced with these rights. Justice Wood handled the sentence for Justin Raynor Bott, taking into account the severity of the crime, the defendant's background, and any mitigating or aggravating factors. In Launceston, Justice Pearce and Justice Tennant managed the part-heard trials, focusing on the evidence presented and the legal principles applicable to the charges. Each decision would have been carefully considered to ensure justice was served in a manner consistent with the law and the facts of the case.

The final orders of the court would have been communicated in written judgments or orders, detailing the court's findings, the reasons for its decisions, and any directions for future proceedings. These orders would have addressed the immediate legal issues before the court and set the stage for any subsequent steps in the legal process for each case.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established