Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Tuesday, 6 October 2015 Summary

SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA LAW LISTS FOR TUESDAY, 6 OCTOBER 2015

HOBART
Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before THE FULL COURT
10:00 a.m.

For Hearing

Bradley John Chaplin

Sergeant Richard Lane

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice TENNENT
Criminal Jurisdiction
3:30 p.m.

For Directions Hearing

Stuart Malcolm Allen

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
2:15 p.m.
For Sentence by video link to Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Michael Robert Keeling

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
Civil Jurisdiction
9:30 a.m.
Miscellaneous Civil Business

LAUNCESTON
No list for Launceston

BURNIE
Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie before Justice Pearce
Criminal Jurisdiction
2:15pm
For Sentence by video link from Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Michael Robert Keeling

______________________________________________________
(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 was engaged in several cases on Tuesday, 6 October 2015. In the criminal jurisdiction, Bradley John Chaplin was scheduled to face Sergeant Richard Lane. Chaplin's case was to be heard in Court 1 at Salamanca Place, Hobart, presided over by Justice Tennent. Additionally, Stuart Malcolm Allen had a directions hearing scheduled in Court 8 before Justice Pearce. The case of Michael Robert Keeling was set for sentencing in Burnie via video link from Court 8 in Hobart, also presided over by Justice Pearce. In the civil jurisdiction, miscellaneous civil business was to be handled by Associate Justice Holt in Court 3 at Salamanca Place, Hobart.

The legal issues varied across the cases. Chaplin's case likely involved criminal charges, with the specifics not detailed in the document. Allen's directions hearing would have focused on procedural matters in his criminal case, such as the scheduling of further hearings or trials. Keeling's sentencing would involve determining an appropriate punishment based on the criminal charges for which he was convicted. In the civil case, the nature of the miscellaneous business was not specified.

The court's reasoning and outcome for each case were not detailed in the document. Each case would have proceeded according to the evidence presented and the applicable laws. Justice Tennent, Justice Pearce, and Associate Justice Holt would have overseen the proceedings and made decisions based on the merits of each case.

No final orders were provided in the document. The outcomes of each case would have been communicated to the parties involved through legal notices or court orders.

Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Tuesday, 6 October 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established