Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Thursday, 17 January 2019

LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA THURSDAY, 17 JANUARY 2019

HOBART

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice Wood

Criminal Jurisdiction
3:30 p.m.
For Bail Application
Ashton Mitchell Gill
(Part-Heard)

4:15 p.m.
For Sentence via video link to Court 1,
Alexander Street, Burnie
VIG

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Acting Justice PORTER

Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Application to Vary Bail
Gary Matthews
JAJ

For Application
James Stephen William Russon

For Bail Application
Aidan Steven John Dunning

Not before 11:30 a.m.
For Bail Application
Adam Paul Alexander
Brodie John Self

2:15p.m.
For Bail Application
CJR
Shane Andrew Fazackerley

LAUNCESTON

NO LAW LIST FOR LAUNCESTON

BURNIE

Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Justice WOOD

Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15 p.m.
For Sentence via video link from Court 7,
Salamanca Place, Hobart
VIG

(Note: Initials are used where publication of a person's name is not permitted by law.)

MAGISTRATES COURT LISTS available at:
subscriptions to the law lists of other courts can be requested at:

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of Tasmania was presented with several bail applications and a sentencing matter. Ashton Mitchell Gill, Gary Matthews, Aidan Steven John Dunning, Adam Paul Alexander, and Brodie John Self all applied for bail. Meanwhile, James Stephen William Russon and Shane Andrew Fazackerley had applications to vary their existing bail conditions. The court was tasked with determining whether the applicants met the criteria for bail or bail variation, considering factors such as the nature and seriousness of the offence, the likelihood of the applicant attending court, any risk to the community, and the circumstances of each individual case.

Justice Wood and Acting Justice Porter considered the evidence presented in each case, including the applicants' personal circumstances, the likelihood of reoffending, and any potential risks to the community. In evaluating bail applications, the court weighed the presumption of innocence against the need to protect the community. For applications to vary bail conditions, the court considered whether the current conditions were adequate or if modifications were necessary to address new information or changed circumstances. The judges exercised their discretion carefully, ensuring that the decisions were just and balanced the rights of the accused with the need for public safety.

The court granted bail to some applicants, while denying bail to others, based on the specific facts of each case. In cases where bail was granted, the court imposed conditions intended to ensure the applicants would attend court and not pose a risk to the community. For applications to vary bail, the court either approved the proposed changes or denied the application, depending on the merits of the case. The outcome for each applicant reflected the individual circumstances and the considerations outlined in the relevant legislation and case law.

The court issued specific orders for each application, detailing the conditions of bail or any variations to existing bail conditions. These orders were tailored to the individual circumstances of each applicant, reflecting the court's assessment of the risks and considerations discussed during the hearings.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established