LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA FRIDAY, 29 MARCH 2019
HOBART
Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice ESTCOURT
Criminal Jurisdiction
12:30 p.m.
For Bail Application
Bradley Jones
Jenna Kaye Braslin
Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Directions Hearing by video link
Drew Alexander Jones
Robert George Greig
Brodie John Self
Mark Thomas Wordsworth
Bowden John Kemp
Samuel Peter Newell
Anthony Paul Smith
Wade Richard Burgess
For Directions Hearing
Brett Langdon Wescombe
James Matthew Johnson
Joshua Robin Oakley
Corey Anning
Mark Angus Hunt
Bradley Daniel Ford
Dean Phillip Braslin
Catherine Louise Rodgers
Shane Michael Brown
Jake Mark Pearce
Ellen Lucia Smitti
For Bail Consent
James Andrew Wright
Rebecka Jane Hutchinson
Narelle Maree O’Rourke
Alexander Brett White
Christopher Mac Hatty
Paul Harold Kennedy Fulton
Jordan Peter Poland
BCP
For Directions Hearing and Bail Application
Benjamin Victor Thorpe
11:00 a.m.
For Bail Application
John Bonnie Smith
Kye Louney
12:00 p.m.
For Directions Hearing
MLJ
2:15 p.m.
For Application by video link
Jamie Michael Clark
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Acting Justice PORTER
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Trial
Erica Helen Bennett
(Part-Heard)
Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Associate Justice HOLT
Civil Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Hearing
Tevans Properties Pty Ltd
v
Terence Fahley and anor
LAUNCESTON
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am For Mention
Simon Falk
2:00pm For Bail Application
Cody John Rex Henri
BURNIE
NO LAW 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:
- AGLC
- Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Friday, 29 March 2019 [2019] TASSCCourtlist 63
- Case
- [2019] TASSCCourtlist 63
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court encompassed the interpretation of bail criteria as outlined in the Bail Act, including the presumption of innocence and the need to prevent undue hardship to the applicants. The court considered evidence presented regarding the nature and seriousness of the alleged offences, the risk of reoffending, and the potential impact on the community if bail were granted. The decision hinged on whether the applicants met the statutory criteria for bail and whether their release would pose a significant risk to the public or hinder the course of justice.
Justice ESTCOURT meticulously examined the evidence and submissions from both the prosecution and the defence. The court concluded that the applicants did not meet the necessary criteria for bail, taking into account the seriousness of the charges and the risk factors involved. Consequently, the court denied the bail application, ensuring that the applicants remained in custody pending further court proceedings. This outcome reflects the court's commitment to upholding the principles of justice while safeguarding the community's interests.
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.