SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA LAW LISTS FOR WEDNESDAY, 25 FEBRUARY 2015
HOBART
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice TENNENT
Criminal Jurisdiction
11:00 a.m.
For Facts and Sentence
Jamie Peter Smart
Rhys Louis Gardner
Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice PORTER
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Mention via video-link to Risdon Prison Complex
Robert Frederick Bowden
For Mention
Richard Neil Pryor
Nathan Grant Chatters
For Preliminary Proceedings Application
Joshua James Williams
For Bail Consent
Michael Anglin
Jassy Anglin
Jason Linley Bell
For Plea via video-link to Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Ellen Irene Amy Tiller
For Plea
Nicholas Mark Stebbins
Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Civil Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Hearing
Tasmanian Perpetual Trustees Ltd
v
Attorney General for the State of Tasmania
Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice PEARCE
Civil Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Trial
Darren Maxwell Burge
v
Fiona Mei-Han Patterson
(Part-Heard)
LAUNCESTON
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PORTER
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Plea via video-link from Court 8, Hobart
Ellen Irene Amy Tiller
BURNIE
No law 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:
- AGLC
- Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Wednesday, 25 February 2015 [2015] TASSCCourtlist 31
- Case
- [2015] TASSCCourtlist 31
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues in these cases ranged from sentencing and bail applications in the criminal jurisdiction to preliminary proceedings and civil disputes. The court was required to address questions of sentence proportionality, eligibility for bail, and the validity of legal arguments presented in both civil and criminal contexts. The outcome of these cases would depend on the specific legal arguments, evidence presented, and the interpretation of relevant laws by the presiding justices.
The court’s reasoning and outcomes were not detailed in the provided extract, but the scheduling and nature of the cases indicate that each would be meticulously examined. Justices Tennent, Porter, Wood, and Pearce would have applied relevant legal principles and statutory provisions to reach their decisions. The final orders and judgments would have been communicated in subsequent court sessions or documented in legal records.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.