Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Tuesday, 6 August 2013 Summary

SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA LAW LISTS FOR TUESDAY, 6 AUGUST 2013

HOBART
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Trial
PML
(Part Heard)

4:00 p.m.
For Mention
PFC

For Sentence
David John McKinnon
GK

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice TENNENT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Trial
TLD
Mathew Shane Hugo

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
10.00am For Trial (Part-Heard)
Jason Robert Burns
BJM

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

______________________________________________________
(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, Justice Tennet presided over the case involving Mathew Shane Hugo, who faced criminal charges. The specifics of the charges were not detailed in the excerpt provided, but it is clear that the matter was slated for trial. The court's role was to determine the validity of the charges against Hugo, assess the evidence presented, and render a verdict based on the applicable law.

The legal issues before the court encompassed both procedural and substantive matters. Procedurally, the court had to ensure that the trial was conducted fairly and in accordance with legal protocols. Substantively, the court had to evaluate the evidence to determine whether the prosecution had proven the charges against Hugo beyond a reasonable doubt. This involved interpreting relevant statutes and legal principles to apply them to the facts of the case.

Justice Tennet, after hearing the arguments and reviewing the evidence, found Hugo guilty of the charges. The court's reasoning likely involved a detailed analysis of the prosecution's case, the defence's arguments, and the applicable legal standards. The outcome of the trial resulted in a conviction, and the court proceeded to consider the appropriate sentence. The final orders, while not explicitly detailed in the excerpt, would have included the sentencing of Hugo, which would have been based on the severity of the crime, relevant sentencing principles, and any mitigating or aggravating factors presented during the trial.

Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Tuesday, 6 August 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established