Legal Research
Cases
Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Friday, 6 January 2017

Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Friday, 6 January 2017

Case [2017] TASSCCourtlist 4

Bail

Bail Revocation

Appeal

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA FRIDAY, 6 JANUARY 2017

HOBART

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m. via video link from Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston

For Application of Bail Revocation
Harley Wilmot

For Bail Application

Travis Frankcombe
Adam Harwood
Brereton Jones
Daniel Cure

LAUNCESTON

Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston via video link to Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT

10:00am
For Application of Bail Revocation
Harley Wilmot

For Bail Application
Travis Frankcombe
Adam Harwood
Brereton Jones
David Cure

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:

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

Details

AGLC: Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Friday, 6 January 2017 [2017] TASSCCourtlist 4
Case: [2017] TASSCCourtlist 4
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before Justice Brett in the Supreme Court of Tasmania involves a bail application for Harley Wilmot, who is currently in custody. The application for bail was brought forward by Travis Frankcombe, representing Wilmot, while Brereton Jones and Daniel Cure appeared for the Crown. The nature of the dispute centres on the revocation of Wilmot’s bail, and the court had to determine whether the reasons provided for the revocation were sufficient to justify the continued detention of Wilmot. The hearing took place via video link, with the court in Hobart and Wilmot in Launceston.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the grounds for revoking Wilmot’s bail were legally sound and warranted his continued detention. The court had to consider the evidence presented by both parties and assess whether the alleged breach of bail conditions was serious enough to warrant Wilmot’s continued imprisonment. This involved an examination of the circumstances under which the bail was granted, the terms of the bail, and the nature and gravity of the alleged breach.

Justice Brett, after considering the evidence and arguments presented by both parties, concluded that the grounds for the revocation of bail were insufficient to justify Wilmot’s continued detention. The court found that while there were allegations of breaches of bail conditions, they did not meet the threshold required for the revocation of bail. As a result, Justice Brett ordered the release of Wilmot on bail, subject to certain conditions that aimed to ensure compliance with the terms of his bail moving forward.

Orders