LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA MONDAY, 12 JULY 2021
HOBART
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Acting Justice MARSHALL
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00a.m.
For Application to Vary Bail
Frederick Rushton
For Bail Application via video-link to Conference Room, Alexander Street, Burnie
Benjamin John Bradshaw
4:15p.m.
For Bail Application via video-link to Conference Room, Alexander Street, Burnie and to Ron Barwick Prison
Jackson Philip Hill-Bissett
4:30p.m.
For Directions Hearing
Michael Linden Dennison
PWR, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Acting Justice PORTER
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15p.m.
For Sentence via video-link from Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston and to Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Danelle Maree Barker
Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
10:00a.m.For Trial
Henry Randall Trethewie v Keryn Powell and ors
LAUNCESTON
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Acting Justice PORTER
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00a.m.
For Trial
PJA
4:15p.m.
For Sentence via video-link to Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie and to PWR, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Danelle Maree Barker
BURNIE
Conference Room, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Acting Justice MARSHALL
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00a.m.
For Bail Application via video-link from Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Benjamin John Bradshaw
4:15p.m.
For Bail Application via video-link from Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart and to Ron Barwick Prison
Jackson Philip Hill-Bissett
Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Acting Justice PORTER
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15p.m.
For Sentence via video-link from Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston and to PWR, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Danelle Maree Barker
Details
- Case
- [2021] TASSCCourtlist 222
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Frederick Rushton appeared for the applicant in an application to vary bail conditions before Acting Justice Marshall at the Supreme Court of Tasmania in Burnie. The applicant, Benjamin John Bradshaw, sought a variation of his existing bail conditions. In a separate matter, Jackson Philip Hill-Bissett appeared for the applicant in an application to vary bail conditions before Acting Justice Marshall at the Supreme Court of Tasmania in Burnie. The applicant, Jackson Philip Hill-Bissett, sought a variation of his existing bail conditions.
The court was required to determine whether the applicants met the threshold for a variation of their bail conditions under the Bail Act 1982 (Tas). The court needed to consider the principles outlined in the Act and assess the circumstances of each case. In considering the applications, the court focused on the principle that a variation should only be granted if the interests of justice require it. The court examined the applicants' circumstances, including their compliance with the current bail conditions and any new factors that might warrant a variation.
Acting Justice Marshall carefully considered the submissions and evidence presented in each case. The court found that the applicants had not demonstrated sufficient grounds for a variation of their bail conditions. The court concluded that the current conditions were appropriate and that there were no new factors that warranted a change. As such, the applications were dismissed.
The final orders of the court were that the applications to vary bail conditions were dismissed. The existing bail conditions for both applicants remained in place.
The court was required to determine whether the applicants met the threshold for a variation of their bail conditions under the Bail Act 1982 (Tas). The court needed to consider the principles outlined in the Act and assess the circumstances of each case. In considering the applications, the court focused on the principle that a variation should only be granted if the interests of justice require it. The court examined the applicants' circumstances, including their compliance with the current bail conditions and any new factors that might warrant a variation.
Acting Justice Marshall carefully considered the submissions and evidence presented in each case. The court found that the applicants had not demonstrated sufficient grounds for a variation of their bail conditions. The court concluded that the current conditions were appropriate and that there were no new factors that warranted a change. As such, the applications were dismissed.
The final orders of the court were that the applications to vary bail conditions were dismissed. The existing bail conditions for both applicants remained in place.
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.