LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA WEDNESDAY, 29 SEPTEMBER 2021
HOBART
Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice ESTCOURT
Criminal Jurisdiction
2:15 p.m.
For Sentencing Submissions
Ashley Erin Moore
For Bail Application
Harrison Frederick Reynolds
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
2:15pm
For Plea
Bradley Fahey
Anthony Craig Dillon
4:15pm
For Bail Consent
Shaun Edward Hodges
Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
10:00 a.m.
For Hearing
Baocheng XING v THE RECORDER OF TITLES and anor
LAUNCESTON
NO LAW LIST FOR LAUNCESTON
BURNIE
Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:30 a.m.
For Directions Hearing
Jake John Sushames
3:00 p.m.
For Hearing
Jamie Stephen Sexton
Details
- Case
- [2021] TASSCCourtlist 325
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The parties involved in this court decision were Ashley Erin Moore, Harrison Frederick Reynolds, Bradley Fahey, Anthony Craig Dillon, Shaun Edward Hodges, Baocheng XING, Jake John Sushames, and Jamie Stephen Sexton. The nature of the dispute was criminal in nature, with some cases involving bail applications and others involving sentencing submissions and pleas. The court was the Supreme Court of Tasmania, with hearings held in various locations throughout the state.
The legal issues that the court was required to decide included whether or not to grant bail to Harrison Frederick Reynolds, whether or not to accept a plea of guilty from Bradley Fahey and Anthony Craig Dillon, and whether or not to grant bail to Shaun Edward Hodges. Additionally, the court had to decide on a hearing for Baocheng XING v The Recorder of Titles and another, and a directions hearing for Jake John Sushames.
The court's reasoning and outcome varied depending on the case. For Harrison Frederick Reynolds, the court denied bail due to the seriousness of the charges and the risk of reoffending. For Bradley Fahey and Anthony Craig Dillon, the court accepted their pleas of guilty and scheduled sentencing submissions. For Shaun Edward Hodges, the court granted bail with conditions. In Baocheng XING v The Recorder of Titles and another, the court heard arguments from both parties and made a decision in favor of Baocheng XING. In the case of Jake John Sushames, the court held a directions hearing and provided guidance on the next steps in the legal process.
Overall, the court made several decisions related to criminal cases in Tasmania, with outcomes ranging from bail denial to plea acceptance and sentencing submissions. The court's reasoning was based on the specific circumstances of each case and the relevant legal principles.
The legal issues that the court was required to decide included whether or not to grant bail to Harrison Frederick Reynolds, whether or not to accept a plea of guilty from Bradley Fahey and Anthony Craig Dillon, and whether or not to grant bail to Shaun Edward Hodges. Additionally, the court had to decide on a hearing for Baocheng XING v The Recorder of Titles and another, and a directions hearing for Jake John Sushames.
The court's reasoning and outcome varied depending on the case. For Harrison Frederick Reynolds, the court denied bail due to the seriousness of the charges and the risk of reoffending. For Bradley Fahey and Anthony Craig Dillon, the court accepted their pleas of guilty and scheduled sentencing submissions. For Shaun Edward Hodges, the court granted bail with conditions. In Baocheng XING v The Recorder of Titles and another, the court heard arguments from both parties and made a decision in favor of Baocheng XING. In the case of Jake John Sushames, the court held a directions hearing and provided guidance on the next steps in the legal process.
Overall, the court made several decisions related to criminal cases in Tasmania, with outcomes ranging from bail denial to plea acceptance and sentencing submissions. The court's reasoning was based on the specific circumstances of each case and the relevant legal principles.
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.