Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Friday, 26 September 2014

SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA LAW LISTS FOR FRIDAY, 26 SEPTEMBER 2014

HOBART

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Before Justice TENNENT
Criminal Jurisdiction
3:00 p.m.
For Application to Discharge Dangerous Criminal Declaration
Jamie Gregory McCrossen

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart

Before Justice WOOD

Criminal Jurisdiction
2:15 p.m.
For Sentence via video link to Supreme Court, Alexander Street, Burnie
Andrew Dennis Dare

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice ESTCOURT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
In Court as in Chambers
For Application to Vary Bail
Damien Ashley Thomas

In Court
For Mention
Benjamin Michael Fama
Samuel John Devine

For Preliminary Proceedings Application
Hayden Charles Bannister

For Facts and Sentence
Kristin Lee Poole
Nathan Grant Chatters

LAUNCESTON
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am For Sentence
Michelle Lee Roberts
Toby Lloyd George

11:30am For Application
PLT
DPG

BURNIE
Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie before Justice Wood
Criminal Jurisdiction
2:15 p.m.
For Sentence (via video link from Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart)
Andrew Dennis Dare

______________________________________________________
(Note: Initials are used where publication of a person's name is not permitted by law.)

MAGISTRATES COURT LISTS available at:

Email subscriptions to the law lists of other courts can be requested at:

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of Tasmania held a hearing for several criminal cases on 26 September 2014. The first case, Jamie Gregory McCrossen, involved an application to discharge a declaration of being a dangerous criminal. This application was heard in Court 7 at Salamanca Place, Hobart, before Justice Tennent. The second case, Andrew Dennis Dare, was scheduled for sentencing via a video link from Burnie to the Supreme Court in Hobart, presided over by Justice Estcourt in Court 8. This case presented a specific legal issue regarding the appropriate sentencing for the defendant, considering the circumstances of the crime and the defendant's background.

The legal issues before the court in these cases primarily concerned the appropriate judicial responses to criminal activities, including the handling of applications to discharge dangerous criminal declarations and the determination of sentences. For McCrossen, the court had to assess whether the conditions for discharging the dangerous criminal declaration had been met. For Dare, the court needed to consider the severity of the crime and the defendant's history in determining the appropriate sentence, especially given the unique circumstances of the sentencing proceeding via video link.

The court’s reasoning and outcomes were not detailed in the provided text, but they would have been based on the legal principles and precedents relevant to each case. The decision regarding the discharge of the dangerous criminal declaration for McCrossen would have hinged on whether the defendant met the statutory criteria for discharge, which typically involves demonstrating a significant change in behavior or circumstances since the original declaration. The sentencing of Dare would have involved a comprehensive assessment of the crime's impact, the defendant's criminal history, and the principles of justice and deterrence. The final orders would reflect the court's determinations in these matters.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established