Law Lists For the Supreme Court of Tasmania Wednesday 18 November 2020HOBARTCourtÂ 1, Salamanca Place, HobartBefore Justice WOODCriminalÂ Jurisdiction10:00 a.mFor TrialJames Christopher Steven FlaskasFor Directions...

LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA WEDNESDAY 18 NOVEMBER 2020

HOBART

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m
For Trial
James Christopher Steven Flaskas
For Directions Hearing
J S F

For Application to Vary Bail
Fahed Elniz

4:15 p.m
For Sentence via video-link to Court 1, Burnie
Nicholas Kyle Jones
For Application to Vary Bail
Shannon Lee Burridge
Joe Robert Moeakiola

For Bail Application via video-link to Court 1, Burnie
Aaron James Crosswell

Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice PEARCE
Civil Jurisdiction
10:30 a.m
For Judicial Review
The Honourable Peter Gutwein, as Minister Administering the State Service Act 2000
v
Tasmanian Industrial Commission

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15 p.m.
For Sentence via video link to Burnie PWR, Alexander Street
Bradley Lawrence Mykael Gee

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
11:00am
For Legal Argument
Shaun Edward Hodges
(Part-heard)

2:15pm
For Sentence
Natasha Anne Hickey

Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice Brett
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15pm
For Directions Hearing
JRC

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice GEASON
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:30 a.m.
For Bail Consent
Justin Richard Maynard

10:00 a.m.
For Directions Hearing
Ricky John Crossin

4:00 p.m.
For Directions Hearing
Luke David Buck
v
State of Tasmania

LAUNCESTON

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Mention
Mark Richard Nicholas

For Trial
Luke Frans Bezemer
(part-heard)

4:15 p.m.
For Bail Application via video link to Risdon Prison Complex
Harley Leslie Myers-Reynolds

BURNIE

Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15 p.m
For Sentence via video-link from Court 1, Hobart
Nicholas Kyle Jones

For Bail Application via video-link from Court 1, Hobart
Aaron James Crosswell

Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Justice ESTCOURT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Trial
Bradley Frank Richards
(Part-heard)

4:00 p.m.
For Mention via video-link to Ron Barwick Prison
Kurt Johnhill Richardson

For Mention
Lincoln Christopher Blake

For Breach Application
Adam James Orne
Burnie PWR, Alexander Street
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:15 p.m.
For Sentence via video link from
Court 8 Salamanca Place, Hobart
Bradley Lawrence Mykael Gee

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Tasmania, Justice Wood presided over a range of criminal cases on Wednesday, 18 November 2020. Among these were a directions hearing for James Christopher Steven Flaskas, an application to vary bail for Fahed Elniz, and a sentencing hearing for Nicholas Kyle Jones via video-link from Burnie. Additionally, the court handled a bail application for Aaron James Crosswell, also via video-link from Burnie. The court's criminal jurisdiction was engaged with these matters to ensure the appropriate legal processes were followed for each defendant, whether in person or remotely.

The legal issues before the court involved the procedural aspects of criminal trials and bail applications, as well as the sentencing of convicted individuals. Justice Wood was tasked with overseeing the directions hearings to guide the progression of Flaskas's case, reviewing the application to vary bail conditions for Elniz, and determining the sentence for Jones, taking into account the circumstances of the crime and the individual's background. The court's role was to apply the relevant criminal law and procedural rules to each case, ensuring fairness and adherence to legal standards.

Justice Wood's reasoning and decisions were based on the specific facts and legal arguments presented in each case. For Flaskas, the court would have considered the prosecution's case, the defence's response, and any procedural issues that needed to be addressed before the trial could proceed. In the case of Elniz, the court assessed whether the existing bail conditions were sufficient or if modifications were necessary to balance the rights of the defendant with public safety concerns. For Jones, the sentencing hearing involved a review of the evidence presented during the trial, the impact of the crime on the victim, and the principles of sentencing under the Criminal Code. Justice Wood's outcomes in these cases were aimed at ensuring that the legal process was conducted fairly and justly.

The final orders from the court would have detailed the specific directions for each case, any changes to bail conditions, and the sentence handed down to Jones. These orders would be communicated to the parties involved, setting the stage for the next steps in the legal proceedings. The court's decisions reflected a careful consideration of the law, the facts of the cases, and the principles of justice.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established