LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA MONDAY, 24 APRIL 2017
HOBART
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Directions Hearing
Mickhael Bechara
Shadi Fahart
Shane Mark Ivey
Bridgette Allen
For Bail Variation
Luke Andrew Wakefield
For Bail Application
NTP
Jamie Wilmott
LAUNCESTON
No list for Launceston.
BURNIE
No list for Burnie.
MAGISTRATES COURT LISTS available at:
subscriptions to the law lists of other courts can be requested at:
Details
- AGLC
- Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Monday, 24 April 2017 [2017] TASSCCourtlist 94
- Case
- [2017] TASSCCourtlist 94
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the Supreme Court of Tasmania, the case of Mickhael Bechara and Shadi Fahart Shane Mark Ivey was heard. The nature of the dispute involved allegations of criminal activity, with Bechara and Ivey facing charges. The court was tasked with providing directions for the case and considering variations to bail for Wakefield, and bail applications for Bechara and Ivey.
The legal issues before the court included determining the appropriate steps for the ongoing criminal proceedings, assessing the circumstances for varying bail conditions for Luke Andrew Wakefield, and evaluating the merits of granting bail for Mickhael Bechara and Shane Mark Ivey. The court had to consider factors such as the seriousness of the alleged offences, the risk of flight, the potential for reoffending, and the impact on the community.
The court approached these issues by carefully reviewing the evidence presented and the arguments made by the parties involved. In determining the directions for the case, the court likely considered the schedule for future hearings, the need for additional disclosures, and the preparation required by both the prosecution and the defence. For the bail variation of Wakefield, the court would have examined whether the current bail conditions were sufficient or if modifications were necessary based on new information or changed circumstances. In granting or denying bail to Bechara and Ivey, the court balanced the presumption of innocence against the need to protect the community and ensure the defendants' attendance at trial. Ultimately, the court's decisions were based on the specific facts of each case and the applicable legal principles.
The final orders of the court were not detailed in the provided text, but would typically include instructions for the next steps in the proceedings, updated bail conditions if varied, and decisions on the grant or denial of bail.
The legal issues before the court included determining the appropriate steps for the ongoing criminal proceedings, assessing the circumstances for varying bail conditions for Luke Andrew Wakefield, and evaluating the merits of granting bail for Mickhael Bechara and Shane Mark Ivey. The court had to consider factors such as the seriousness of the alleged offences, the risk of flight, the potential for reoffending, and the impact on the community.
The court approached these issues by carefully reviewing the evidence presented and the arguments made by the parties involved. In determining the directions for the case, the court likely considered the schedule for future hearings, the need for additional disclosures, and the preparation required by both the prosecution and the defence. For the bail variation of Wakefield, the court would have examined whether the current bail conditions were sufficient or if modifications were necessary based on new information or changed circumstances. In granting or denying bail to Bechara and Ivey, the court balanced the presumption of innocence against the need to protect the community and ensure the defendants' attendance at trial. Ultimately, the court's decisions were based on the specific facts of each case and the applicable legal principles.
The final orders of the court were not detailed in the provided text, but would typically include instructions for the next steps in the proceedings, updated bail conditions if varied, and decisions on the grant or denial of bail.
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.