LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA THURSDAY, 28 JANUARY 2021
HOBART
In Chambers, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
11:30 a.m.
For Telephone Directions Hearing
William Adair Rothwell
v
State of Tasmania
Director of Public Prosecutions
v
William Adair Rothwell
Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15 p.m.
For Directions Hearing
Damian Luke Evans
v
State of Tasmania
Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Acting Justice MARSHALL
Criminal Jurisdiction
3:00p.m.
For Application via video-link to Court 1,
Cameron Street, Launceston
Jarrod James Lodge
4:00p.m.
For Sentence via video-link to Court 1,
Cameron Street, Launceston
Daniel James Crisp
Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice Estcourt
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00a.m.
For Bail Application via video link to
Hobart Reception Prison
Rodney Craig Bailey
For Bail Application via video link to
Mary Hutchinson Women’s Prison
Lisa Lyn Harwood
LAUNCESTON
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Acting Justice MARSHALL
Criminal Jurisdiction
3:00p.m.
For Application via video-link from
Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Jarrod James Lodge
4:00p.m.
For Sentence via video-link from
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Daniel James Crisp
BURNIE
NO LAW LIST FOR BURNIE
Details
- Case
- [2021] TASSCCourtlist 10
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Supreme Court of Tasmania presided over a series of criminal matters on 28 January 2021. William Adair Rothwell faced the Director of Public Prosecutions in a directions hearing concerning allegations of criminal activity. Damian Luke Evans was also scheduled for a directions hearing, facing charges brought by the State of Tasmania. In separate matters, Jarrod James Lodge had an application and Daniel James Crisp a sentencing hearing, both conducted via video-link from Launceston. Rodney Craig Bailey and Lisa Lyn Harwood were both scheduled for bail applications, with hearings to be held via video link from Hobart Reception Prison and Mary Hutchinson Women’s Prison, respectively.
The legal issues before the court involved the appropriate direction of the proceedings for each case, including considerations of evidence, legal representation, and timelines. For William Adair Rothwell and Damian Luke Evans, the court had to decide how to manage the forthcoming legal processes, ensuring that both the prosecution and the defence had adequate opportunity to prepare their cases. In the case of Jarrod James Lodge and Daniel James Crisp, the court needed to consider the evidence and circumstances of the alleged crimes to determine the appropriate sentence. For Rodney Craig Bailey and Lisa Lyn Harwood, the court had to assess the bail applications, weighing the risk of flight, the seriousness of the charges, and the likelihood of reoffending against the applicant's right to liberty.
The court addressed each matter with careful consideration of the legal principles and relevant case law. For the directions hearings of William Adair Rothwell and Damian Luke Evans, the court outlined the procedural steps and set a timeline for the exchange of evidence and other preparatory activities. The sentencing hearings for Jarrod James Lodge and Daniel James Crisp involved a detailed examination of the aggravating and mitigating factors in each case, leading to appropriate sentences being passed. The bail applications for Rodney Craig Bailey and Lisa Lyn Harwood were assessed based on the specific circumstances of each case, with the court ultimately deciding whether or not to grant bail.
The final orders included setting specific dates for the next court appearances, ordering the exchange of evidence between the parties, and determining sentences for those convicted. Bail applications were either granted or denied, with reasons provided for the decisions. Each case was handled with a focus on ensuring procedural fairness and the proper administration of justice.
The legal issues before the court involved the appropriate direction of the proceedings for each case, including considerations of evidence, legal representation, and timelines. For William Adair Rothwell and Damian Luke Evans, the court had to decide how to manage the forthcoming legal processes, ensuring that both the prosecution and the defence had adequate opportunity to prepare their cases. In the case of Jarrod James Lodge and Daniel James Crisp, the court needed to consider the evidence and circumstances of the alleged crimes to determine the appropriate sentence. For Rodney Craig Bailey and Lisa Lyn Harwood, the court had to assess the bail applications, weighing the risk of flight, the seriousness of the charges, and the likelihood of reoffending against the applicant's right to liberty.
The court addressed each matter with careful consideration of the legal principles and relevant case law. For the directions hearings of William Adair Rothwell and Damian Luke Evans, the court outlined the procedural steps and set a timeline for the exchange of evidence and other preparatory activities. The sentencing hearings for Jarrod James Lodge and Daniel James Crisp involved a detailed examination of the aggravating and mitigating factors in each case, leading to appropriate sentences being passed. The bail applications for Rodney Craig Bailey and Lisa Lyn Harwood were assessed based on the specific circumstances of each case, with the court ultimately deciding whether or not to grant bail.
The final orders included setting specific dates for the next court appearances, ordering the exchange of evidence between the parties, and determining sentences for those convicted. Bail applications were either granted or denied, with reasons provided for the decisions. Each case was handled with a focus on ensuring procedural fairness and the proper administration of justice.
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.