Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Wednesday, 16 May 2012

SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA LAW LISTS FOR WEDNESDAY, 16 MAY 2012

HOBART

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice EVANS
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
In Court as in Chambers
For Bail Application
Amba Georgina Burgess-Banks
Brandon Jackson

2:15 p.m.
For Disputed Facts Hearing
Maxwell Morrison

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Trial
Aaron James O’Malley
(Part Heard)

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
Civil Jurisdiction
10.00 a.m.
Summary Judgment
Deputy Commissioner of Taxation
V
Morley

LAUNCESTON

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Chief Justice Crawford
Criminal Jurisdiction
10.00am For Trial (Part-Heard)
KJY

BURNIE

Court 1, Alexander Street Burnie
Before Justice Wood
Criminal Jurisdiction
9.30am For Trial (Part Heard)
Dwayne Anthony Bugg

_______________________________________________________
(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 convened on Wednesday, 16 May 2012, with a variety of criminal and civil matters on the agenda. In Court 7 at Salamanca Place, Hobart, Justice Evans presided over a bail application filed by Amba Georgina Burgess-Banks and Brandon Jackson. At 2:15 p.m., Justice Evans also heard a Disputed Facts Hearing for Maxwell Morrison. In another court, Justice Blow dealt with a criminal trial for Aaron James O’Malley, which was part-heard. Associate Justice Holt presided over a civil matter concerning summary judgment for the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation versus Morley.

The legal issues that the court had to decide involved bail considerations for Burgess-Banks and Jackson, the resolution of disputed facts in Morrison's case, and the determination of summary judgment in the civil case involving the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation and Morley. In the criminal trial of O’Malley, the court had to assess the evidence presented and decide on the defendant's guilt or innocence. In the final matter, the court examined whether the plaintiff's claim for summary judgment was well-founded.

The reasoning and outcome of the cases were not detailed in the text provided. However, it can be inferred that the court would have applied relevant legal principles to each case, considering the evidence and arguments presented. Justice Evans likely assessed the likelihood of flight, the risk to the community, and other factors pertinent to the bail application. Justice Blow would have evaluated the disputed facts to determine their relevance and impact on Morrison's case. Associate Justice Holt would have reviewed the merits of the summary judgment application, focusing on whether there was any genuine issue that needed to be tried. The outcomes of these hearings would depend on the specifics of each case and the application of the law to the facts.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established