Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Tuesday, 29 September 2015 Summary

SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA LAW LISTS FOR TUESDAY, 29 SEPTEMBER 2015

HOBART

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice PORTER
Criminal Jurisdiction
4:00 p.m.
For Sentence
Stephen John Gleeson

4:15 p.m.
For Sentence
Daniel John Oakley

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
Civil Jurisdiction
9:30 a.m.
Miscellaneous Civil Business

LAUNCESTON

COURT 2, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
In Court as in Chambers
10:00am
For Bail Variation by video link to
Court 1, Supreme Court, Alexander Street, Burnie
Christopher James Harris

BURNIE

Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
In Court as in Chambers
10:00am

For Bail Variation by video link
From Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston

Christopher James Harris

______________________________________________________
(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:

The Supreme Court of Tasmania was convened on Tuesday, 29 September 2015, with proceedings in both criminal and civil matters scheduled. In Court 7, presided over by Justice Porter, the court was set to sentence two individuals, Stephen John Gleeson and Daniel John Oakley, with Gleeson's sentencing scheduled for 4:00 p.m. and Oakley's immediately following at 4:15 p.m. In Launceston, at Court 2, before Justice Pearce, bail variation applications were scheduled for Christopher James Harris, with proceedings to be held in court and via video link to Burnie. A similar bail variation matter for Harris was also listed for Burnie, presided over by Justice Pearce, with the hearing also to be conducted in court and via video link to Launceston.

The legal issues before the court involved sentencing of Gleeson and Oakley in the criminal jurisdiction, as well as the variation of bail conditions for Harris in the criminal jurisdiction. For Gleeson and Oakley, the court would have to consider the appropriate sentence based on the nature and circumstances of the offences committed, as well as any mitigating or aggravating factors. In the case of Harris, the court would need to evaluate the risk factors associated with Harris to determine if the current bail conditions should be varied.

Justice Porter, presiding over the sentencing of Gleeson and Oakley, would have taken into account the legal principles relevant to sentencing, including the principles of proportionality and deterrence, as well as the specific facts of the cases. In determining the sentences, Justice Porter would have considered the severity of the offences, the culpability of the offenders, and any previous criminal history. For the bail variation applications concerning Harris, Justice Pearce would have examined the evidence presented regarding Harris's risk to the community and the likelihood of him adhering to bail conditions, weighing these against the presumption of innocence and the right to liberty. The court would have also considered the interests of justice in its decision-making process.

The outcome of the proceedings would have been the sentencing of Gleeson and Oakley, with the specific details of the sentences not provided in the text. In relation to Harris, the court would have either varied the bail conditions or maintained them, depending on the evidence presented and the risk assessment. Final orders would have been made by the court based on its findings and the applicable legal principles.

Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Tuesday, 29 September 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established