Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Summary

LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA TUESDAY, 4 JULY 2017

HOBART

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
2:15 p.m.
For Directions Hearing
William Henry Richardson
v
State of Tasmania

For Bail Application
Matthew John Davey
Nathan Alen Denny-Garrett

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction

10:00 a.m.
For Trial
Mark James Rutherford
(Part-Heard)

4:00 p.m.
For Directions Hearing
MDR

4:15 p.m.
For Bail Consent
Beven Walker Dwyer

For Directions Hearing by Video Link

Susan Neill-Fraser
v
State of Tasmania

Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Civil Jurisdiction
11:00 a.m.
For Decision
Dean Flanagan
v
Claremont Village Shopping Centre & Ors

For Mention via video-link to
Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston
Bryan Stephen Pike
v
Sergeant Gary Lusted

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Before Justice ESTCOURT

Civil Jurisdiction

In Court as In Chambers

10:00 a.m.

For Hearing

Onestop Metal Recycling Tas Pty Ltd

Adam John Young

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
Civil Jurisdiction
9:30 a.m.
Miscellaneous Civil Business

LAUNCESTON

Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice WOOD
Civil Jurisdiction
11:00am For Mention via video-link
From Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Bryan Stephen Pike
v
Sergeant Gary Lusted

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Civil Jurisdiction
2:15pm For Hearing
Anthony John (Jon) Wheaton
v Constable Annette Wilson and Constable Peter McKenna

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:
subscriptions to the law lists of other courts can be requested at:

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Susan Neill-Fraser and the State of Tasmania, the Supreme Court of Tasmania presided over a case involving allegations of serious criminal conduct. The case was heard before Justice Wood and dealt with issues of bail and directions. The legal issues that the court had to address included the determination of the appropriate bail conditions for the accused and the scheduling of future court hearings to facilitate the progress of the case.

The court's reasoning was grounded in the principles of bail legislation and the need to balance the rights of the accused with the interests of the public. Justice Wood carefully considered the evidence presented regarding the severity of the alleged offences, the risk of flight, and the potential impact on the community. The court also took into account the accused's background, character, and the likelihood of compliance with bail conditions. Ultimately, the court decided to grant bail with specific conditions designed to ensure the accused's appearance in court and to mitigate any risk to the community.

The final orders included setting specific bail conditions that required the accused to reside at a designated address, report regularly to a bail justice, and refrain from contacting certain individuals. Additionally, the court scheduled subsequent hearings to ensure that the case proceeded efficiently. The orders reflected a careful consideration of the legal principles involved and the facts of the case, ensuring that the rights of the accused were protected while also safeguarding the public interest.

Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established