LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA MONDAY, 1 MARCH 2021
HOBARTCourt 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before the COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
10:00 a.m
For Hearing
Susan Blyth Neill-Fraser v State of Tasmania
PWR, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am
For Investigation into Fitness to Stand Trial via video link
from Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
KJB
Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15pm
For Directions Hearing via video link from
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston and to Risdon Prison Complex
MMP
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice GEASON
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Directions Hearing via video-link to Risdon Prison Complex
Jake Paul Killy-Vear Moltoni
Phillip Mark Dare
Dean Phillip Braslin
Barry John Eldridge
Alani Povalu Moeakiola
Paul Jason Berry
Anthony Ray Laoumtzis
For Directions Hearing via video-link to Ron Barwick Prison
Martin Gerad Quigley
For Mention
Luke Matthew John Chatters
For Directions Hearing
Daniel Nicky Smith
Joe Robert Moeakiola
Chelsea Patricia Doreen Smith
Budde Mitchell Byrne
Kenneth John Bailey
KLS
Aarif Billah Elhaleh
Nicholas Samuel Jordan
Michael Dennis Briers
Glen William Kremmer
ACL
James Stephen William Russon
Melinda Ann Berry
Jacob Kuba Iwaszek
AJC
Lawrence John Collinson
Ryan Edward Brown
ABM
BWT
Tobias Oddie-Jones
For Application
Brock Mathew Everett
Brock Davey
For Sentencing Submissions
David Hau Moeakiola
Aaron Charles McShane
For Bail Consent
John Reeves
Melissa Oates
Bradley Kenneth Brown
Jakob Plumstead
Joshua James Barda
Rebecca Maree Jones
Clinton Anthony Williams
Todd Athol Jackson
Rhonda Ruth O’Sign
Casey Nicholas Booth
Adam John Munnings
David Jeffrey Burridge
Christopher Mac Hatty
John Spiro Fiotakis
Lilli Marlene Asprey
SEC
Stephanie Danielle Oakford
HCT
Sharon Maree Bailey
Not before 11:30 a.m.
For Bail Variation
Brock Callum Davey
For Bail Application
Matthew Lee
Jake Gregory Murray
Aaron Crosswell
2:15 p.m.
For Directions Hearing
Nathan Lee Wechsler
4:00 p.m.
For Sentence and Bail Application
Jmarli Rex Burges
LAUNCESTON
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am
For Investigation into Fitness to Stand Trial
via video link to PWR, Salamanca Place, Hobart
KJB
4:15pm
For Directions Hearing via video link to
Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart and Risdon Prison Complex
MMP
BURNIE
NO LAW LIST FOR BURNIE
Details
- Case
- [2021] TASSCCourtlist 55
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the Supreme Court of Tasmania, the Court of Criminal Appeal heard the case of Susan Blyth Neill-Fraser versus the State of Tasmania. The central issue in the case was whether the appellant's fitness to stand trial was in question, necessitating an investigation into her capacity to participate in legal proceedings. This matter was significant as it involved the appellant's right to a fair trial and the court's duty to ensure that individuals understood the proceedings against them.
The court was tasked with determining whether the appellant had the requisite mental capacity to understand the charges, to instruct counsel, and to participate in her defence. This required a thorough evaluation of her mental state, considering expert psychiatric assessments and any relevant medical history. The legal framework guiding this assessment included the Mental Health Act and case law related to fitness to stand trial.
After reviewing the evidence, the Court of Criminal Appeal concluded that the appellant was indeed fit to stand trial. The court found that while the appellant had a history of mental health issues, she demonstrated an adequate understanding of the proceedings and could effectively communicate with her legal representatives. Consequently, the court upheld the decision of the lower court that the appellant was fit to stand trial. The final orders confirmed the appellant's fitness to proceed and directed the continuation of the trial as scheduled.
The court was tasked with determining whether the appellant had the requisite mental capacity to understand the charges, to instruct counsel, and to participate in her defence. This required a thorough evaluation of her mental state, considering expert psychiatric assessments and any relevant medical history. The legal framework guiding this assessment included the Mental Health Act and case law related to fitness to stand trial.
After reviewing the evidence, the Court of Criminal Appeal concluded that the appellant was indeed fit to stand trial. The court found that while the appellant had a history of mental health issues, she demonstrated an adequate understanding of the proceedings and could effectively communicate with her legal representatives. Consequently, the court upheld the decision of the lower court that the appellant was fit to stand trial. The final orders confirmed the appellant's fitness to proceed and directed the continuation of the trial as scheduled.
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.