LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA FRIDAY, 21 MAY 2021
HOBART
Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:00p.m.
For Bail Application by video-link
to Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Anthony Lee Donohue
Jackson Hill-Bissett
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am
For Trial
Brendan Edward Cotter
(Part-heard)
Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice GEASON
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:30am
For Directions Hearing
ABM
For sentence
Jacob Kuba Iwaszek
10:00am
For Directions Hearing
James Mathew Johnson
Joe Robert Moeakiola
David Hau Moeakiola
Alani Povalu Moeakiola
Ryan Edward Brown
Jesse James Aherne
For mention
Amanda Louise White
Not before 11:30am
For mention via video link to Risdon Prison Complex
NLW
For sentence
Mohammad Maleki
Mohammad Heidari
Harley George McKenzie
Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
10.00a.m.
For Hearing via Teams
Liviende Veranto (ACN 055 928 562) v Thyssenkrupp Elevator Australia Pty Limited (ACN 12 073 056 149) and ors
Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Acting Justice MARSHALL
Criminal Jurisdiction
09:00a.m.
For Sentence via video-link to PWR,
Alexander Street, Burnie and to
Mary Hutchinson Women’s Prison
Jennifer Lee Jones
LAUNCESTON
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am
For Legal Argument
IMN 12:30pm
For Sentence
Georgia-May Smith
BURNIE
Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:00p.m.
For Bail Application by video-link
from Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Anthony Lee Donohue
Jackson Hill-Bissett
PWR, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Acting Justice MARSHALL
Criminal Jurisdiction
09:00a.m.
For Sentence via video-link from Court 2,
Salamanca Place, Hobart and to Mary Hutchinson Women’s Prison
Jennifer Lee Jones
Details
- Case
- [2021] TASSCCourtlist 155
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Supreme Court of Tasmania heard a bail application in the case of Anthony Lee Donohue and Jackson Hill-Bissett, who were in custody pending trial. The application was heard via video link. The applicants were represented by their legal counsel and the prosecution was represented by the state's legal representatives. The court was required to determine whether the applicants met the criteria for bail under the Bail Act 1982.
The legal issues before the court included whether the applicants were likely to attend court if granted bail, whether they posed an unacceptable risk to the community if released, and whether the interests of justice required them to remain in custody. The court considered evidence from both the prosecution and the defence, including character references and the nature of the alleged offences. The applicants argued that they were not flight risks and that their release on bail would not pose a risk to the community. The prosecution argued that the applicants should remain in custody due to the seriousness of the alleged offences.
After considering the evidence, the court determined that the applicants were not likely to attend court if granted bail and that their release on bail would pose an unacceptable risk to the community. The court also found that the interests of justice required the applicants to remain in custody. The bail application was therefore refused.
The court ordered that the applicants remain in custody until their trial. The court also directed that the applicants be given access to legal representation and that they be provided with appropriate facilities for communication with their legal counsel. The prosecution was directed to ensure that the applicants were provided with appropriate conditions of detention and that their rights were protected.
The legal issues before the court included whether the applicants were likely to attend court if granted bail, whether they posed an unacceptable risk to the community if released, and whether the interests of justice required them to remain in custody. The court considered evidence from both the prosecution and the defence, including character references and the nature of the alleged offences. The applicants argued that they were not flight risks and that their release on bail would not pose a risk to the community. The prosecution argued that the applicants should remain in custody due to the seriousness of the alleged offences.
After considering the evidence, the court determined that the applicants were not likely to attend court if granted bail and that their release on bail would pose an unacceptable risk to the community. The court also found that the interests of justice required the applicants to remain in custody. The bail application was therefore refused.
The court ordered that the applicants remain in custody until their trial. The court also directed that the applicants be given access to legal representation and that they be provided with appropriate facilities for communication with their legal counsel. The prosecution was directed to ensure that the applicants were provided with appropriate conditions of detention and that their rights were protected.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.