Amended Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Monday, 1 March 2021

AMENDED LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA MONDAY, 1 MARCH 2021

HOBART

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before the COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
10:00 a.m
For Hearing
Susan Blyth Neill-Fraser v State of Tasmania

PWR, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am
For Investigation into Fitness to Stand Trial via video link from Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
KJB

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15pm
For Directions Hearing via video link from Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston and to Risdon Prison Complex
MMP

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice GEASON
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Directions Hearing via video-link to Risdon Prison Complex
Jake Paul Killy-Vear Moltoni
Phillip Mark Dare
Dean Phillip Braslin
Barry John Eldridge
Alani Povalu Moeakiola
Paul Jason Berry
Anthony Ray Laoumtzis

For Directions Hearing via video-link to Ron Barwick Prison
Martin Gerad Quigley

For Mention
Luke Matthew John Chatters

For Directions Hearing
Daniel Nicky Smith
Joe Robert Moeakiola
Chelsea Patricia Doreen Smith
Budde Mitchell Byrne
Kenneth John Bailey
KLS
Aarif Billah Elhaleh
Nicholas Samuel Jordan
Michael Dennis Briers
Glen William Kremmer
ACL
James Stephen William Russon
Melinda Ann Berry
Jacob Kuba Iwaszek
AJC
Lawrence John Collinson
Ryan Edward Brown
ABM
BWT
Tobias Oddie-Jones

For Application
Brock Mathew Everett
Brock Davey

For Sentencing Submissions
David Hau Moeakiola
Aaron Charles McShane

For Bail Consent
John Reeves
Melissa Oates
Bradley Kenneth Brown
Jakob Plumstead
Joshua James Barda
Rebecca Maree Jones
Clinton Anthony Williams
Todd Athol Jackson
Rhonda Ruth O’Sign
Casey Nicholas Booth
Adam John Munnings
David Jeffrey Burridge
Christopher Mac Hatty
John Spiro Fiotakis
Lilli Marlene Asprey
SEC
Stephanie Danielle Oakford
HCT
Sharon Maree Bailey

Not before 11:30 a.m.
For Bail Variation
Brock Callum Davey

For Bail Application
Matthew Lee
Jake Gregory Murray
Aaron Crosswell

2:15 p.m.
For Directions Hearing
NLW

4:00 p.m.
For Sentence and Bail Application
Jmarli Rex Burges

LAUNCESTON

Monday, 1 March 2021
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am
For Directions Hearing
Mark Richard Nicholas

For Investigation into Fitness to Stand Trial via video link to PWR, Salamanca Place, Hobart
KJB

For Bail Consent
Jeffrey Robert Anderson

4:15pm
For Directions Hearing via video link to Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart and Risdon Prison Complex
MMP

BURNIE

NO LAW LIST FOR BURNIE

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The document outlines various cases scheduled to be heard by the Supreme Court of Tasmania on Monday, 1 March 2021. The cases span both criminal and civil jurisdictions, with hearings scheduled across multiple locations, including Hobart and Launceston. In the criminal jurisdiction, a notable case involves Susan Blyth Neill-Fraser versus the State of Tasmania, presided over by Justice Brett. This case is listed for a hearing at 10:00 a.m. in Hobart, while other cases are scheduled for investigations into fitness to stand trial, directions hearings, and sentencing submissions, all via video links. Additionally, there are civil matters listed for bail applications and variations, indicating a comprehensive range of legal issues to be addressed during the court session.

The court was required to address a variety of legal issues pertinent to both criminal and civil cases. In the criminal domain, key issues include determining the fitness of defendants to stand trial, managing directions hearings, and making decisions on bail applications and variations. The court also needed to consider matters of sentencing and investigate the conditions and readiness of defendants for trial. On the civil side, the court had to evaluate applications for bail and variations to existing bail conditions. The complexity of these issues required careful consideration of legal principles, procedural fairness, and the rights of the accused under Australian law.

In addressing these issues, the court applied relevant legal standards and principles to ensure that each case was handled appropriately. Justice Brett, presiding over several criminal cases, likely considered the precedents and statutory provisions that govern fitness to stand trial and bail applications. The court's reasoning would have focused on the specific circumstances of each defendant, including their mental health, the nature of the charges, and the potential impact on the trial process. The outcomes of these hearings would directly affect the defendants' rights and the progression of their respective cases. The court's decisions were likely based on a thorough assessment of the evidence and legal arguments presented, ensuring that justice was served in accordance with the law.

The final orders of the court would have been communicated to the parties involved, detailing the outcomes of the hearings and any subsequent actions required. For criminal cases, this might include decisions on fitness to stand trial, bail conditions, or directions for further proceedings. In civil matters, the court would have provided rulings on bail applications and variations. These orders would form the basis for the next steps in each case, guiding the legal process moving forward. The court's decisions would have been documented and made available to the parties, ensuring transparency and accountability in the judicial process.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established