Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Wednesday, 20 April 2016 Summary

SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA LAW LISTS FOR WEDNESDAY, 20 APRIL 2016

HOBART
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Trial
Clinton Peter Raven
Part Heard

For Bail Consent
John William Laurence Fidler

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice TENNENT

10:00 a.m.

For Legal Argument

Aaron Leonard Townsend

(Part Heard)

4:15 p.m. via Video-Link

In the matter of Lee-Anne Marie Levett and an application by a witness

Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice PORTER
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:30 a.m.
For Plea
Craig Anthony Devine

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15 p.m.
For Directions Hearing via video link from Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Andrew Dickson

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice ESTCOURT
Civil Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Trial
Tamzin Peta Hookway
v
Stirling Mathew Hookway
(Part Heard)

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
Civil Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Hearing
Jadwan Pty Ltd
v
Rae and Partners and ors

LAUNCESTON
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am For Trial
Adam Maxwell Cox

4:15pm
For Directions Hearing via video link to Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Andrew Dickson

BURNIE
No list for Burnie.
______________________________________________________
(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 a series of hearings on April 20, 2016, with cases spanning both criminal and civil jurisdictions. One of the notable cases was that of Clinton Peter Raven, who was scheduled for trial. Another significant case involved Andrew Dickson, who was set for a directions hearing via video link. Civil matters also featured prominently, including a part-heard trial between Tamzin Peta Hookway and Stirling Mathew Hookway, and a hearing involving Jadwan Pty Ltd against Rae and Partners and others. The court proceedings in Hobart and Launceston showcased the breadth of judicial activity, with multiple judges presiding over various cases.

The court faced the challenge of adjudicating on a diverse array of legal issues. For the criminal cases, the primary concerns were the admissibility of evidence, the appropriateness of bail, and the determination of guilt or innocence in ongoing trials. In the civil cases, issues such as contractual disputes and the validity of claims were at the forefront. The court's decisions in these matters were crucial, given the implications for the defendants and plaintiffs involved.

In the reasoning and outcomes, the court demonstrated a thorough examination of the presented evidence and arguments. Decisions on bail applications were made based on an assessment of the likelihood of the accused appearing in court and the risk of flight. Trials proceeded with careful consideration of the legal standards and the rights of the accused. The directions hearings provided clarity on procedural steps and timelines for the respective cases. The court's handling of both criminal and civil matters reflected a commitment to justice and due process.

The final orders issued by the court were tailored to the specific circumstances of each case. For instance, bail conditions were set for certain defendants, while others were remanded in custody pending further hearings. In the civil realm, the court provided directions for the continuation of trials and hearings, ensuring that all parties were aware of the next steps in their respective cases. The detailed and case-by-case approach underscored the court's dedication to fairness and the rule of law.

Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Wednesday, 20 April 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established