Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Wednesday, 7 November 2012 Summary

SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA LAW LISTS FOR WEDNESDAY, 7 NOVEMBER 2012

HOBART
Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice PORTER
Criminal Jurisdiction
10.00 a.m.
For Mention
Shane Rodney Narracott
Shaun Edward Murtagh

For Plea
Valerie Susan Kiss

For Voir Dire
Steven Kevin Jones
(Part-Heard)

4.15 p.m.
For Sentence
Jonathon Patrick Fox

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
10.00 a.m.

For Trial

Hamish John Wood

(Part-Heard)

4.15 p.m.

For Mention

Peter Mitchel Dunbar

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
Civil Jurisdiction
10.00 a.m.
Amend Statement of Claim
Etter
v
The State of Tasmania

2.15 p.m.
Submissions
The Police Association of Tasmania
v
Leary & Ors

4.15 p.m.
For Mention by telephone
Plane
v
Kaine

LAUNCESTON
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston

Before Chief Justice Crawford

Criminal Jurisdiction
LAUNCESTON

10.00am
For Mention (via Video Link)
Marcus Denis Mayne

For Trial
AJL

Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice Tennent

Criminal Jurisdiction
In Court as in Chambers

2.15pm
For Bail Application
JMWM

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 had several cases listed for 7 November 2012. In Hobart, Court 8 handled criminal cases, including a plea by Shaun Edward Murtagh and a voir dire involving Steven Kevin Jones. Court 7, also in Hobart, dealt with a mention and a part-heard trial. In Launceston, Chief Justice Crawford presided over a criminal mention via video link, while Justice Tennent handled a bail application in Court 2. Meanwhile, Associate Justice Holt was responsible for civil matters in Court 3, including an amendment to a statement of claim and submissions in a case involving The Police Association of Tasmania.

The legal issues before the court ranged from criminal pleas and trials to civil amendments and submissions. The court was required to address procedural matters, bail applications, and the validity of claims in both criminal and civil contexts. For instance, in the case of Steven Kevin Jones, the court had to determine the admissibility of certain evidence during the voir dire. In civil matters, the court needed to consider whether the amended statement of claim met legal standards and whether the submissions by The Police Association of Tasmania were valid.

The court's reasoning and outcome varied across the cases. For example, in the criminal cases, the court likely assessed the pleas and evidence to determine guilt or innocence. In the civil case, the court would have evaluated the amended statement of claim to decide whether it could proceed. The outcome of each case would depend on the specific facts and legal arguments presented. For instance, if the amended statement of claim was found to be adequate, the court would likely allow it to proceed. Conversely, if the evidence in the voir dire was deemed inadmissible, it would be excluded from the trial.

The final orders would depend on the outcomes of each case. In criminal matters, the court might impose sentences or set dates for further hearings. In civil cases, the court might grant permission for the amended statement of claim to proceed or dismiss it. The specific orders would be detailed in the court's written judgments, which would be available after the hearings.

Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Wednesday, 7 November 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established