Tasmanian Supreme Court List

LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA WEDNESDAY, 18 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)

4:00p.m.
For Sentence
Michael John Lamp

4:15p.m.
For Directions Hearing
ABM

Adam James Bishop
v
State of Tasmania

Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice Estcourt
Civil Jurisdiction
2:15 p.m.
For Directions Hearing
QRS v Legal Profession Board of Tasmania
and Law Society of Tasmania

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice Estcourt
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Mention via video-link to Risdon Prison Complex
Michael Leonard Linnell

For Mention
Todd Andrew Tatnell

4:15 p.m.
For Mention via video-link to Risdon Prison Complex
Christopher Michael Goss

LAUNCESTON

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00a.m.
For Witness on Final Notice
Jenna Worthington
Sharon Worthington

To Follow:
For Bail Consent
Jarrod Robert Ward

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

Before Justice BRETT
For Sentence via video-link from
Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie

4:15p.m.
Brayden Charles Heyward

BURNIE

Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:15a.m.
For Preliminary Proceedings Application
Craig Ashley Delaney

9:30a.m.
For Basha Inquiry
Ryan Andrew Shackcloth

9:45a.m.
For Mention
Christine Joy Radford

10:00a.m.
For Mention
Joel Lawrence Upton
Krishna Kali Brown

For Witness on Final Notice
Jarman Lockett
Benjamin Pyke

4:15p.m.
For Sentence via video-link to
Court 2, Charles Street, Launceston
Brayden Charles Heyward

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Adam James Bishop has brought an action against the State of Tasmania in the Supreme Court of Tasmania, seeking an injunction and declaratory relief against the implementation of certain laws. Justice Estcourt was tasked with addressing the validity and constitutionality of the laws in question, as well as the relief sought by the plaintiff. The court examined the legislative framework, the rights of the plaintiff, and the potential impact of the laws on the community. In its reasoning, the court analysed the relevant statutes and constitutional provisions, considering the balance between the rights of the individual and the public interest.

After thorough examination of the evidence and arguments presented, Justice Estcourt concluded that the laws in question were constitutional and did not infringe upon the plaintiff's rights. The court found that the legislative measures were within the scope of the State's powers and were designed to address a significant public concern. Consequently, the court dismissed the plaintiff's claims and refused to grant the injunction and declaratory relief sought. The decision was grounded in the court's interpretation of the relevant legal principles and the evidence provided by both parties.

As a result of the court's decision, the State of Tasmania is free to implement the laws in question without the need for an injunction or declaration from the court. The plaintiff's claims were dismissed, and no relief was granted. The court's judgment provides clarity on the constitutionality of the laws and the rights of individuals in the context of legislative measures designed to address public concerns.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established