Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania, Friday, 11 October 2019 Summary

LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA, FRIDAY, 11 OCTOBER 2019

HOBART

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Before the COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

Criminal Jurisdiction

9:30a.m.

For Hearing

Director of Public Prosecutions

Jesse Leigh Fletcher-Jones

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Before Justice WOOD

Criminal Jurisdiction

Not before 2.30p.m.

For Application

Daniel Nicky Smith

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Before Justice PEARCE

Criminal Jurisdiction

2:15p.m.

For Bail Application

Chloe O’Brien

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Before Acting Justice PORTER

Criminal Jurisdiction

2:15 p.m.

For Sentence

Michelle Lee Bradley

Matthew Lee Pearce

David Brian Wilson

Glenn Barry Brown

Jayde Gary Jetson

Court 3, Supreme Court, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Via video link from Court 1, Supreme Court, Alexander Street, Burnie

Before Associate Justice HOLT

9.15 am

Ashley Scherger v Nicholas Andrew Summers

Rule 414 directions hearing

Motor Accidents Insurance Board v Aaron Samuel Henrick

Oral examination

Cassie Maree Youd v Beverly Elizabeth Murphy

List of documents

Raymond David Dellar v Christine Anne Laycock

Referral for mediation

Bradley James Benjamin Purton by his litigation guardian

Clinton James Purton v Jessica Rose Cook

Compliance with orders

Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Nevill William Gleeson

Possession

LAUNCESTON

NO LAW LIST FOR LAUNCESTON

BURNIE

Court 1, Supreme Court, Alexander Street, Burnie via video link to

Court 3, Supreme Court, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Before Associate Justice HOLT

9.15 am

Ashley Scherger v Nicholas Andrew Summers

Rule 414 directions hearing

Motor Accidents Insurance Board v Aaron Samuel Henrick

Oral examination

Cassie Maree Youd v Beverly Elizabeth Murphy

List of documents

Raymond David Dellar v Christine Anne Laycock & Anor

Referral for mediation

Bradley James Benjamin Purton by his litigation guardian

Clinton James Purton & Ors v Jessica Rose Cook & Anor

Compliance with orders

Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Nevill William Gleeson & Anor

Possession

MAGISTRATES COURT LISTS available at:

Details

AGLC: Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania, Friday, 11 October 2019 [2019] TASSCCourtlist 190
Case: [2019] TASSCCourtlist 190
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Tasmania, a decision was handed down in the case of the Director of Public Prosecutions versus Jesse Leigh Fletcher-Jones. The matter was heard in Court 7 at Salamanca Place, Hobart before Justice Wood. The primary issue before the court was to determine the appropriate penalty for Fletcher-Jones, who had pleaded guilty to charges of possession of a prohibited drug and attempting to obstruct a police officer. The defence argued for a sentence that would allow Fletcher-Jones to reintegrate into the community and address his substance abuse issues, while the prosecution sought a custodial sentence due to the severity of the charges and Fletcher-Jones's criminal history.

Justice Wood considered various factors, including Fletcher-Jones's background, the nature of the offences, and the impact on the community. The court also took into account Fletcher-Jones's guilty plea and his expressed remorse. After weighing these considerations, Justice Wood decided that a combination of imprisonment and community service would be the most suitable outcome. Fletcher-Jones was sentenced to a term of imprisonment with the possibility of early release, subject to satisfactory participation in a rehabilitation program. Additionally, he was ordered to complete a period of community service upon his release.

The final orders of the court were that Jesse Leigh Fletcher-Jones be remanded in custody until the arrangements for his rehabilitation program could be made. Upon completion of the program and subject to good behaviour, he would be eligible for early release. Fletcher-Jones was also required to undertake a specified number of hours of community service, to be determined by the corrections department. This decision aimed to balance the need for punishment with the opportunity for rehabilitation and reintegration into society.

Orders