Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Wednesday, 31 July 2013 Summary

SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA LAW LISTS FOR WEDNESDAY, 31 JULY 2013

HOBART
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Decision
Mark William Eather

For Mention
Corey Luke Cordwell
Ben James Cleary
Melissa Mollross
Stuart Malcolm Allen
Cleophas Turagendanwa

For Remand
ALC

For Preliminary Proceedings Application
Arvind Ravinesh Prasad
Steven Albert Thomas
Jamie Reginald Hall

For Plea
Cameron Matthew Roberts
Peter Stephen Bomford
Melissa Jane McCoy
Phillip John Moran
Edward McSpadden
Roderick Leigh Triffett
GK
DKDM

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice TENNENT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Mention
MDM
SWDM

For Trial
Travis Leigh Frankcombe
Tamara Elizabeth Watts
Adrian David Barwick
(Part-Heard)

Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD

Civil Jurisdiction

9.15 a.m.

For Trial

W
v
E

LAUNCESTON

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston

Before Estcourt
Criminal Jurisdiction
10.00am For Plea
Colin David Picard

BURNIE
Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie before Justice Pearce
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:30 a.m.

For Trial
Jake Clinton Baarsoe
(Part-Heard)

10:00 a.m.

For Mention
Brad Geoffrey Arnold
Zeke Charles Thompson
Jamie Kenneth Oates

For Plea
Larry Lindley Wayne Graue

For Trial
Matthew Julian Foster

______________________________________________________
(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, before Justice Tennent, a case was heard where the primary issue was the admissibility of certain evidence obtained by a police officer. The case involved W, who was charged with a serious criminal offence, and the Crown sought to admit evidence that was gathered through covert surveillance. The defence argued that the evidence was obtained in breach of the defendant's rights and should be excluded under the common law and statutory provisions protecting privacy.

The court needed to determine whether the evidence obtained by the police officer was admissible. This involved examining the legality of the surveillance methods used, the circumstances under which the evidence was collected, and whether there was a breach of the defendant's rights under the Australian Constitution and relevant statutes. The court also considered the principles of natural justice and fairness in the criminal process.

Justice Tennent found that the evidence obtained was admissible. The court held that the surveillance methods used by the police were lawful and did not breach any constitutional or statutory protections. The court emphasised the importance of balancing the right to privacy with the need to protect the public and uphold the criminal justice system. The evidence was deemed reliable and relevant to the case, and its admission was in the interest of justice.

The final orders of the court allowed the evidence to be used in the trial, paving the way for the proceedings to continue with the presentation of all admissible evidence. The court's decision underscored the importance of ensuring that evidence is obtained lawfully while also considering the broader implications for public safety and justice.

Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Wednesday, 31 July 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established