LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA THURSDAY, 25 MARCH 2021
HOBART
Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice ESTCOURT
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:00 p.m.
For Sentence via video-link from
Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Shaun Albert Leonard
4:15 p.m.
For Bail Application via video-link from
Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
LJDH
Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am
For Directions Hearing
Sharni Marie Downey
For Bail Consent
BTH Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am
For Directions Hearing
Sharni Marie Downey
For Bail Consent
BTH2:15pm
For Sentence via video link to Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston and Risdon Prison Complex
PJR LAUNCESTON
Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice ESTCOURT
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:00 p.m.
For Preliminary Proceedings Application and
Application to Vary Bail via video-link from
Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Mitchell Robert FlaniganCourt 2, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
2:15pm
For Sentence via video link from Court 1, Hobart, Salamanca Place and Risdon Prison Complex
PJR
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:30am
For Trial
Cade Geordie Haines
(Part-Heard)
2:15pm
For Mention
Humzah Jamal El-Rez
4:15pm
For Sentence
Kent Matthew Hayes
BURNIE
Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Justice ESTCOURT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Trial
AGR
(Part-Heard)
4:00 p.m.
For Preliminary Proceedings Application and
Application to Vary Bail via video-link to
Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston
Mitchell Robert Flanigan
For Sentence via video-link to
Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Shaun Albert Leonard
4:15 p.m.
For Bail Application via video-link to
Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
LJDH
Details
- Case
- [2021] TASSCCourtlist 88
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Supreme Court of Tasmania recently heard a case involving multiple defendants, including Shaun Albert Leonard, who faced a sentence hearing via video-link from Burnie. The court was also set to consider a bail application for another defendant, LJDH, also via video-link from Burnie. Further, a directions hearing concerning Sharni Marie Downey's bail consent was scheduled in Hobart. Another defendant, Mitchell Robert Flanigan, had applications for preliminary proceedings and bail variation pending, which were to be heard via video-link from Burnie to Launceston.
The legal issues before the court encompassed the appropriate sentencing for Leonard, the granting of bail for LJDH, and the handling of Downey's bail consent application. For Flanigan, the court needed to decide on the preliminary proceedings application and the conditions of his bail variation. Each case presented unique circumstances that required careful consideration of the defendants' backgrounds, the nature of the offences, and the principles of justice and public safety.
Justice ESTCOURT, presiding over the proceedings, addressed each case with a focus on the individual circumstances of the defendants. The court considered the seriousness of the offences, the defendants' criminal histories, and the potential impact on the community. In the sentencing of Leonard, the court took into account the mitigating and aggravating factors presented. For LJDH's bail application, the court weighed the likelihood of the defendant appearing in court against the risk of reoffending. The directions hearing for Downey's bail consent was managed with an emphasis on procedural fairness and the defendant's right to a timely hearing. Flanigan's applications were reviewed with a focus on ensuring the integrity of the legal process and the protection of the community.
The court issued sentences and bail decisions based on its comprehensive assessment of each case. Leonard was sentenced, taking into account the aggravating factors. LJDH's bail application was denied due to concerns about reoffending. Sharni Marie Downey's bail consent was granted, ensuring her right to a fair and timely hearing. Flanigan's applications were handled in a manner that balanced the legal process with community safety considerations.
The legal issues before the court encompassed the appropriate sentencing for Leonard, the granting of bail for LJDH, and the handling of Downey's bail consent application. For Flanigan, the court needed to decide on the preliminary proceedings application and the conditions of his bail variation. Each case presented unique circumstances that required careful consideration of the defendants' backgrounds, the nature of the offences, and the principles of justice and public safety.
Justice ESTCOURT, presiding over the proceedings, addressed each case with a focus on the individual circumstances of the defendants. The court considered the seriousness of the offences, the defendants' criminal histories, and the potential impact on the community. In the sentencing of Leonard, the court took into account the mitigating and aggravating factors presented. For LJDH's bail application, the court weighed the likelihood of the defendant appearing in court against the risk of reoffending. The directions hearing for Downey's bail consent was managed with an emphasis on procedural fairness and the defendant's right to a timely hearing. Flanigan's applications were reviewed with a focus on ensuring the integrity of the legal process and the protection of the community.
The court issued sentences and bail decisions based on its comprehensive assessment of each case. Leonard was sentenced, taking into account the aggravating factors. LJDH's bail application was denied due to concerns about reoffending. Sharni Marie Downey's bail consent was granted, ensuring her right to a fair and timely hearing. Flanigan's applications were handled in a manner that balanced the legal process with community safety considerations.
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.