Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Wednesday, 9 April 2014

SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA LAW LISTS FOR WEDNESDAY, 9 APRIL 2014

HOBART

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice PORTER
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:00 p.m.
Via video link from Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
For Sentence
Randall Anthony House
Melissa Jane Woolley

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.

For Trial
Gerard Vincent Poulson

(Part-Heard)

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice ESTCOURT
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:15 a.m.
For Trial
Stephen Roy Standage
(Part-Heard)

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
Civil Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
Hearing – Refer to Arbitration/Stay Proceedings
The State of Tasmania
v
Bygrave

LAUNCESTON

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston

Before Justice Porter
Civil Jurisdiction
2:15pm
In Court For Hearing
Matthew James Coventry v Snr. Sgt. John Parker & Anor.

Criminal Jurisdiction
4:00pm
For Sentence via video-link to Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Randall Anthony House
Melissa Jane Woolley

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

In the Supreme Court of Tasmania, two cases were scheduled for sentencing. The first case involved Randall Anthony House and Melissa Jane Woolley, who were to be sentenced via a video link from Launceston to Hobart. The second case involved Gerard Vincent Poulson and Stephen Roy Standage, who were to be tried in part. Another case involved the State of Tasmania versus Bygrave, scheduled for a hearing in Launceston. Additionally, a case involving Matthew James Coventry against Senior Sergeant John Parker and another individual was set for hearing in Launceston.

The legal issues before the court encompassed sentencing for the first two cases, partial trials for the third and fourth cases, and a hearing for the fifth case. The court had to consider the appropriate sentences for House and Woolley, determine the outcomes of the trials for Poulson and Standage, and decide whether to proceed with arbitration or stay the proceedings in the case involving the State of Tasmania. The final matter involved Coventry's claims against the police officers, which required the court to assess the merits of the case and determine the appropriate course of action.

The court deliberated on the nature and circumstances of each case, considering relevant legal principles and precedents. For the sentencing cases, the court examined the seriousness of the offences, the offenders' backgrounds, and any mitigating or aggravating factors. In the trials, the court had to evaluate the evidence presented and the credibility of witnesses. For the arbitration hearing, the court had to determine whether arbitration was an appropriate means of resolving the dispute and whether it would be in the best interest of the parties involved. In the final case, the court had to assess the validity of Coventry's claims and decide whether they warranted further investigation or dismissal.

The final orders of the court were not detailed in the text, but they would have included the sentences for House and Woolley, the trial outcomes for Poulson and Standage, the decision on arbitration or staying proceedings for the State of Tasmania case, and the ruling on Coventry's claims against the police officers.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established