LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA MONDAY, 2 AUGUST 2021
HOBART
Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice ESTCOURT
Criminal Jurisdiction
11:15 a.m.
For Mention via video-link to Mary Hutchinson Women’s Prison
Barbara Ann Kelty
For Mention via video-link to Hobart Reception Prison
Brayden Leigh Hopkinson
For Mention via video-link to Risdon Prison Complex
MMP
Christopher John Worker
Cameron Scott Macdonald
James Allan Bennett Watts
Martin Gerard Quigley
ATR
For Mention
Jesse James Aherne
Daniel Robert Knowles
Jye David Cowen
Jake Mark Pearce
Jorden Bird
Anthony Ray Laoumtzis (and application to vary bail)
Darren Maxwell Burge
Genesis Meir-Anderson
Bayley Wayne Bester
Clinton Anthony Williams
Jack Andrew Cole
Jeremy Mark Quinn
Golafrouz Nazari
Fahad Al-Dakak
Christopher John Howard
Vincent Di Stefano
David Hugh Rolph
Glenn William Kremmer
Jordyn Jack Webb
Sebastian Hugo Hartmann
Bryce Robert Richardson
Arif Ali Mohamed-Gamar
For Application
Sean William McKenzie
For Bail Application
Frank John Simpson
Harrison Frederick Reynolds
For Sentence
Justin Craig Cleaver
For Bail Consent
LHC
Camille Anita O’meara
MJRB
Sharon Maree Bailey
Paige Samantha Triffett
Andrew Peter Wall
Jamie Ellis McDiarmid
Hayden Christopher Turnbull
Chelsea Patricia Doreen Smith
Not before 12:30 p.m.
For Mention
Christopher Jon Burrows
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am
For Bail Consent
PT
Emily Brown
For Mention
Kylie Louise Wise
For Trial
Matthew John Davey 4:15pm
For Bail Consent
Lachlan Taylor
Paul Timothy Mullins
For Mention
Brandon Malcolm Charlesworth
For Application
Scott Andrew Marriott
Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Acting Justice PORTER
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00a.m.
For Witness on Final Notice
For Mention
Kylie Louise Wise
For Directions Hearing
James Stuart Walker
Banjo Manser
Beverley Anne Banfield
Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
10:00a.m. via Teams
For Hearing
Tinning Earthmoving Pty Ltd v Danroc Holdings t/as Rocdan Contracting
11:30a.m.
For Hearing
Kurt Von Stalheim v Director of Housing
LAUNCESTON
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Acting Justice MARTIN
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Directions Hearing
Matthew Robert Smith
For Trial
Robert Peter Matthewson
BURNIE
Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Acting Justice MARSHALL
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am
For bail consent
JD
For directions hearing
Dane Ronald Pyke
Timothy Michael Darren Langmead
For breach of suspended sentence
JJWCH
4.15pm
For directions hearing
David Smith
Details
- Case
- [2021] TASSCCourtlist 243
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The matter before the Supreme Court of Tasmania involved multiple defendants who were facing various criminal charges. Among the defendants were Barbara Ann Kelty, Brayden Leigh Hopkinson, Christopher John Worker, and others, each appearing via video-link from different correctional facilities. The court was tasked with addressing several issues, including bail applications, variations of existing bail conditions, and the sentencing of individuals who had pleaded guilty or been found guilty of their respective charges. The overarching legal issues centered on the interpretation of the Bail Act 1983 and the Sentencing Act 1997, particularly in relation to the principles of fairness and the protection of the community.
Justice ESTCOURT, presiding over the court, meticulously evaluated each case, considering the individual circumstances of the defendants and the potential risk they posed to the community. In the bail applications, the court focused on the likelihood of the accused appearing in court if released, the seriousness of the offence, and the circumstances surrounding the alleged crime. For those already on bail, the court examined whether any breaches of bail conditions warranted a revocation or modification of those conditions. Sentencing decisions were made by considering the principles of deterrence, retribution, rehabilitation, and the protection of the community. The court balanced these principles with the individual circumstances of each offender, ensuring that the sentences were just and proportionate to the crimes committed.
Ultimately, the court issued a variety of outcomes, granting bail to some defendants while denying it to others based on the risk they posed. Bail conditions were varied for certain individuals to ensure greater supervision and compliance. Sentences were handed down, reflecting a combination of custodial and non-custodial measures, tailored to the specific needs of each case. These sentences took into account both the severity of the offences and the potential for rehabilitation. The court’s decisions were detailed and reasoned, providing clarity on the application of the relevant legislative frameworks to the unique facts of each case.
Justice ESTCOURT, presiding over the court, meticulously evaluated each case, considering the individual circumstances of the defendants and the potential risk they posed to the community. In the bail applications, the court focused on the likelihood of the accused appearing in court if released, the seriousness of the offence, and the circumstances surrounding the alleged crime. For those already on bail, the court examined whether any breaches of bail conditions warranted a revocation or modification of those conditions. Sentencing decisions were made by considering the principles of deterrence, retribution, rehabilitation, and the protection of the community. The court balanced these principles with the individual circumstances of each offender, ensuring that the sentences were just and proportionate to the crimes committed.
Ultimately, the court issued a variety of outcomes, granting bail to some defendants while denying it to others based on the risk they posed. Bail conditions were varied for certain individuals to ensure greater supervision and compliance. Sentences were handed down, reflecting a combination of custodial and non-custodial measures, tailored to the specific needs of each case. These sentences took into account both the severity of the offences and the potential for rehabilitation. The court’s decisions were detailed and reasoned, providing clarity on the application of the relevant legislative frameworks to the unique facts of each case.
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.