LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA FRIDAY, 23 APRIL 2021
HOBART
Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before the COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
10:00 a.m.
For Hearing by video link to Court 1,
Cameron Street, Launceston
Director of Public Prosecutions
v
Daniel James Crisp
Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Acting Justice MARSHALL
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00a.m.
Re Kye John Edward Charles Louney: Application by Surety
For Bail Application via video-link to Ron Barwick Prison
Daniel Cure
For Bail Application
Mitchell Andrew Allie
2:00p.m.
For Bail Application via video-link to PWR, Cameron Street, Launceston and to Risdon Prison Complex
Francesco Antonio Ciampa
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Acting Justice PORTER
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00a.m.
For Bail Application via video-link
VDS
2:15p.m.
For Sentence
Aaron Dean Eaves
For Mention
Aaron James Irwin
For Plea in Mitigation
SCM
For Bail Application via video-link
Talisha Kelly-Nerracott
Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
9:15a.m. via video link to Supreme Court,
Alexander Street, Burnie
For Mention
Marcus Andrew Boyd and anor v Elizabeth Anne Glover
For Directions Hearing
Sandra Margaret Clark v Peter William Applegate
LAUNCESTON
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before the COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
10:00 a.m.
For Hearing by video link from
Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Director of Public Prosecutions
v
Daniel James Crisp
PWR, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Acting Justice MARSHALL
Criminal Jurisdiction
2:00p.m.
For Bail Application via video-link from
Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Francesco Antonio Ciampa
BURNIE
Supreme Court, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Associate Justice HOLT
9:15a.m. via video link from
Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
For Mention
Marcus Andrew Boyd and anor v Elizabeth Anne Glover
For Directions Hearing
Sandra Margaret Clark v Peter William Applegate
Details
- Case
- [2021] TASSCCourtlist 117
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Court of Criminal Appeal heard an application for bail by Daniel James Crisp, who was facing criminal charges. The matter was heard via video link from the Hobart court to Launceston. Acting Justice Marshall presided over the hearing. The legal issues before the court involved whether the applicant met the criteria for bail under the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Tas). Specifically, the court had to consider whether the applicant was likely to attend court if released on bail, whether the applicant was likely to commit a serious indictable offence while on bail, and whether the bail application was in the interests of justice.
Acting Justice Marshall assessed the application, taking into account the seriousness of the charges, the applicant's criminal history, and the likelihood of reoffending. The court noted that Mr Crisp had a history of failing to appear in court and had been previously convicted of serious offences. The judge also considered the evidence presented by both parties and the submissions made by the applicant's legal representative. Ultimately, the court determined that the risk of reoffending and the risk of non-appearance outweighed the interests of justice in granting bail. Consequently, the application for bail was dismissed.
In summary, the Court of Criminal Appeal dismissed Daniel James Crisp's application for bail, finding that the criteria for release on bail were not met. No further orders were made in this matter.
Acting Justice Marshall assessed the application, taking into account the seriousness of the charges, the applicant's criminal history, and the likelihood of reoffending. The court noted that Mr Crisp had a history of failing to appear in court and had been previously convicted of serious offences. The judge also considered the evidence presented by both parties and the submissions made by the applicant's legal representative. Ultimately, the court determined that the risk of reoffending and the risk of non-appearance outweighed the interests of justice in granting bail. Consequently, the application for bail was dismissed.
In summary, the Court of Criminal Appeal dismissed Daniel James Crisp's application for bail, finding that the criteria for release on bail were not met. No further orders were made in this matter.
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.