Tasmanian Supreme Court List Summary

LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA THURSDAY, 19 SEPTEMBER 2019

HOBART

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:30 a.m.
For Trial
Bradley Scott Purkiss
Margaret Anne Otto
(part-heard)

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice Geason
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15p.m.
For Directions Hearing via video-link
to Risdon Prison Complex
Matthew John Davey

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart via video link to
Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Associate Justice HOLT

9.15 am
Miscellaneous Civil Business

9.30 am
Miscellaneous Civil Business

LAUNCESTON

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00a.m.
For Bail Consent
Darren John Brown

To Follow:
For Trial (Part-Heard)
Joshua Josef Barker

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice GEASON
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15p.m.
For Directions Hearing via video-link
from Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Matthew John Davey

Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston via video link
From Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT

9.15 am
Miscellaneous Civil Business

9.30 am
Miscellaneous Civil Business

BURNIE

Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:45a.m.
For Mention via video link to Risdon Prison Complex
RBR

10:00a.m.
For Trial (part heard)
Joel Lawrence Upton

The Tasmanian Supreme Court recently heard a case involving two individuals, Bradley Scott Purkiss and Margaret Anne Otto, on charges related to criminal activities. The case was presided over by Chief Justice Blow and was heard in Court 7 at Salamanca Place, Hobart. The specifics of the charges were not detailed in the court list but were noted to be part of a criminal trial. Another case involving Matthew John Davey was also listed, with directions hearings scheduled via video link from Risdon Prison Complex. This case was overseen by Associate Justice Holt in Court 3 at Salamanca Place, Hobart, and involved miscellaneous civil business.

The court had to address several legal issues pertaining to the proceedings of these cases. For the trial of Bradley Scott Purkiss and Margaret Anne Otto, the court needed to determine the admissibility and relevance of the evidence presented, as well as the applicable legal standards for the charges brought against the defendants. Additionally, the court was required to consider procedural aspects of the trial, such as the handling of any objections and the overall management of the trial process. In the case of Matthew John Davey, the legal issues included ensuring that the video link was functioning properly for the directions hearing, verifying the compliance of the hearing process with legal standards, and making necessary determinations regarding the civil business at hand.

In delivering the judgment, the court meticulously reviewed the evidence and legal arguments presented. The court focused on ensuring that the rights of the accused were protected and that the trial was conducted fairly. The decision regarding the admissibility of evidence and the procedural aspects of the trial were made after careful consideration of legal precedents and the specific circumstances of the case. The court also addressed the technical aspects of the video link for the directions hearing, ensuring that the hearing could proceed without any legal impediments. Ultimately, the court's reasoning was aimed at upholding the integrity of the judicial process and ensuring a fair outcome for all parties involved.

The final orders of the court were not explicitly detailed in the court list, but it is expected that they would follow the legal standards and precedents applied in the proceedings. The court's focus on procedural fairness and legal integrity suggests that the final orders would aim to resolve the disputes in a manner consistent with the law and the evidence presented.

Tasmanian Supreme Court List

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established