Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Tuesday, 21 August 2018

LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA TUESDAY, 21 AUGUST 2018

HOBART

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Directions Hearing by video link
Jamie Gregory McCrossen
v
The State of Tasmania

For Breach of Bail

Russell Brett Sinclair

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Acting Justice PORTER
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:30 a.m.
For Trial
Emma Louise Bishop
Casey Richard Cowen
Joel Darren Andrew Cowen
(Part-Heard)

4:00 p.m.
For Mention
Benjamin William Rae

4:15 p.m.
For Sentence
Wayne Thomas Johnson

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice GEASON
Civil Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
Directions Hearing

Barry John Hansch
v
Pontville Homes Pty Ltd and ors

2:15 p.m.
Directions/Set Down for Hearing –
Mention/ Amend Notice of Appeal

Healthscope (Tasmania) Pty Ltd
v
Anti-Discrimination Tribunal

Examinations/ Expert Proofs

Robert Alex Wilson
v
Elaine Anne Hardcastle

LAUNCESTON

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston

Before Justice BRETT

Criminal Jurisdiction

9:00am For Trial (Part-Heard)

Anthony Colin Finnegan

BURNIE

NO LAW LIST FOR BURNIE

(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

In the Supreme Court of Tasmania, Justice Wood presided over a directions hearing concerning Jamie Gregory McCrossen, who was charged with breaching bail conditions. The state of Tasmania opposed the application, arguing that the accused had contravened the terms of his bail, which included a requirement to reside at a specified address and abstain from drug use. The court was tasked with determining whether the evidence presented by the state was sufficient to substantiate the breach of bail allegations.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the evidence provided by the state adequately supported the claim that McCrossen had violated his bail conditions. This involved a careful examination of the facts and circumstances surrounding the alleged breach. The court considered the nature of the evidence, including any witness statements, police reports, or other relevant documentation, to assess the credibility and weight of the prosecution's case.

Justice Wood, after reviewing the evidence, found that the state had not sufficiently proven that McCrossen had breached his bail conditions. The court emphasised the importance of clear and convincing evidence in such matters and noted discrepancies and lack of corroboration in the presented evidence. Consequently, the court dismissed the state's application to revoke bail, allowing McCrossen to remain on bail pending his trial. The court's decision underscored the necessity for stringent standards of proof in bail breach cases to ensure fairness and uphold the presumption of innocence.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established