Breaking News

Comments Box SVG iconsUsed for the like, share, comment, and reaction icons

This was posted 8 minutes ago

Further to our report earlier, Tasmania Police acted promptly and carried out a search of a West Launceston property in relation to the threatening social media post published this morning.Police spoke to a 30 year old man believed to be connected with the post and undertook a search of their residence.Police have determined there is no evidence of a credible threat to the public.As a result of investigations into today’s incident, indications are that the post originated from overseas.“I’d like to reassure the Launceston community that the post is considered to be a hoax and there is no evidence of a credible threat,” Detective Sergeant Riley said.“Further investigations will be carried out and anyone with information should contact Launceston Police on 131444 or report anonymously to Crime Stoppers on 1800 333 000 or crimestopperstas.com.au.” See MoreSee Less

Further to our report earlier, Tasmania Police acted promptly and carried out a search of a West Launceston property in relation to the threatening social media post published this morning.

Police spoke to a 30 year old man believed to be connected with the post and undertook a search of their residence.

Police have determined there is no evidence of a credible threat to the public.

As a result of investigations into today’s incident, indications are that the post originated from overseas.

“I’d like to reassure the Launceston community that the post is considered to be a hoax and there is no evidence of a credible threat,” Detective Sergeant Riley said.

“Further investigations will be carried out and anyone with information should contact Launceston Police on 131444 or report anonymously to Crime Stoppers on 1800 333 000 or crimestopperstas.com.au.”

This was posted 2 hours ago

TVN can Exclusively reveal that a serving Tasmania Police office has been stood down after allegations of sexual assault/rape were made by two victims. Tasmania Police confirmed with TVN that investigations are ongoing but the officer has been stood down. They advised the alleged incidents occurred whilst the officer was off duty. See MoreSee Less

TVN can Exclusively reveal that a serving Tasmania Police office has been stood down after allegations of sexual assault/rape were made by two victims. Tasmania Police confirmed with TVN that investigations are ongoing but the officer has been stood down. They advised the alleged incidents occurred whilst the officer was off duty.

This was posted 17 hours ago

Sarah Courtney, Minister for Tourism, Hospitality and Events – Tasmanian Government backing small business through our COVID-19 support grants programsThe Tasmanian Government remains committed to assisting Tasmanian businesses affected by COVID-19 and we have taken considerable, significant measures to do this.As part of the Tasmanian Government’s nearly $1 billion Social and Economic Support Package, our more than $60 million Small Business Emergency Support, Hardship and Continuity grant programs have now all been allocated to support a total of over 18,200 Tasmanian small businesses.In total:More than $30 million has been paid out under the Small Business Emergency grants, which has provided just under 13,300 small businesses grants of $2,500.Over 2,000 grants of $750 have gone to businesses under the Small Business Continuity Program.Under Round One of the Small Business Hardship Grants, a total of 1,330 businesses have received funding of $15,000.Round Two of Hardship grants has seen 1,540 small businesses receive $4,000 to support them in recovery.Due to the unprecedented impact that COVID-19 is having on the Tasmanian economy, the Department of State Growth has experienced high demand from the Tasmanian business community in response to the programs. All grants have now been assessed by the Department, and all applicants have been notified of the outcome.We have remained committed to supporting as many eligible businesses as possible, which is why additional funding was allocated across the programs, including the delivery of a second round of smaller hardship grants. Importantly, this has meant that the available funding has gone further to support even more small businesses across Tasmania that otherwise would not have received funding under the programs. See MoreSee Less

This was posted 17 hours ago

See MoreSee Less

This was posted 17 hours ago

The Government has let our young women down appallingly The ‘system’ has failed themRight or wrong many teenage girls are having babies from 14 15 years of age with limited support other than Centrelink as many of you will no doubt suggest. Most get by and have support of boyfriends, partners and families and are great mothers but sadly some of these girls have their children taken from them as they get into more and more trouble with the Police and end up in the Court system. A revolving door for many who have fallen through the cracks in society. It should be noted some have offended as youths but then have their criminal histories thrown at them some eight years later to suit Child Protections and other agencies agendas. Of course do-gooders get involved and soon enough Child Protection become entangled resulting in mother’s being separated from their children, again a revolving door system. Yes many young women go on to get jobs and get married have children later with successful careers, husbands and plenty of money some with wealthy families not everyone is so lucky. We shouldn’t judge.Baby SnatchersIn 2012 the Government apologised for forced adoptions what we describe as ‘baby snatching’ right up to the 1980’s. Is history from the 1960’s repeating itself since with Child Protection snatching newborn babies from mothers who they say aren’t capable or suitable to have children. They say some are ‘slow learners’ with low IQ’s. There are plenty of mothers in Australia who have mental health issues, intellectually challenged and indeed physical disabilities that can function appropriately and are quite capable to manage their children just fine. Babies are put into care homes sometimes for years and then struggle when reunited with their mother. Toddlers in care get confused and whilst the carers or foster parents on the most part are very good people some aren’t. Mental anguish These young women go through so much anxiety, depression with many becoming suicidal as they can’t see the light at the end of the tunnel. Unfortunately for some there never will be any light. Once you get caught up in this failed system it takes years and years to unravel the mess. Some infants and toddlers at the time reach school age before being reunited. Wrong side of the tracksSometimes no matter what you do it’s never good enough and never will be. For some living on the wrong side of the tracks they will never be treated equally and society wonders why they turn out the way they do. Society has forced that on them. We see these people in the Courts and on the Court lists on a daily basis many for very minor offences in nature but unfortunately a consistent pattern that can quite often result in terms of imprisonment as last resorts. The wrong name Just because you have certain surnames, belong to certain families or live in a certain suburbs doesn’t make you any less of a person or second class. We are all equal but the constant put down and discrimination of these people is what creates these divisions. Unfortunately Tasmania is well known for these ‘class divisions.’ Most have seen the movie Pretty Woman and how she was treated at an upmarket store, this happened here and TVN went back to the Sandy Bay store with the young lady to sort it. A similar incident also happened at a Salamanca Place restaurant we reported on many years ago after the person had made a booking and given the restaurant their contact details. Accomodation A young mother we spoke to recently has been forced into a tiny two bedroom flat cash no questions asked. She applied for thirty homes for her 3 toddlers and infant but was rejected. Where she is now their is no lease, no receipts just under $1,000 a fortnight meaning no rental assistance from Centrelink. Some may ask why she was forced. The situation is she had applied for a transfer due to neighbour issues involving assaults, violence, threats and property damage so she had to go private. Housing Tasmania need to reassess this case and rehouse her as soon as possible.Employment “If they live out there they can work out there” one city retailer told TVN last year when they were looking for staff. We know of situations where these young women have had to use friends addresses in their resumes to get a job. A senior staff member of one national fashion retailer said “it’s just not a good look” with another saying “they have tattoos.” In any event most are better off on Centrelink financially but wanted to work to improve themselves to be out down and degraded. The average person has no ideaAll of this happens in Hobart on a daily basis, of course many of you would never have known and be surprised and disappointed. These women don’t want pity or handouts, they want to fend for themselves and unfortunately that sometimes takes them to the dark side where they were pushed by us very people.©️The Vigilante NewsAll rights reserved See MoreSee Less

The Government has let our young women down appallingly 

The ‘system’ has failed them

Right or wrong many teenage girls are having babies from 14 15 years of age with limited support other than Centrelink as many of you will no doubt suggest. Most get by and have support of boyfriends, partners and families and are great mothers but sadly some of these girls have their children taken from them as they get into more and more trouble with the Police and end up in the Court system. A revolving door for many who have fallen through the cracks in society. It should be noted some have offended as youths but then have their criminal histories thrown at them some eight years later to suit Child Protections and other agencies agendas. Of course do-gooders get involved and soon enough Child Protection become entangled resulting in mother’s being separated from their children, again a revolving door system. 

Yes many young women go on to get jobs and get married have children later with successful careers, husbands and plenty of money some with wealthy families not everyone is so lucky. We shouldn’t judge.

Baby Snatchers

In 2012 the Government apologised for forced adoptions what we describe as ‘baby snatching’ right up to the 1980’s. Is history from the 1960’s repeating itself since with Child Protection snatching newborn babies from mothers who they say aren’t capable or suitable to have children. They say some are ‘slow learners’ with low IQ’s. There are plenty of mothers in Australia who have mental health issues, intellectually challenged and indeed physical disabilities that can function appropriately and are quite capable to manage their children just fine. 

Babies are put into care homes sometimes for years and then struggle when reunited with their mother. Toddlers in care get confused and whilst the carers or foster parents on the most part are very good people some aren’t. 

Mental anguish 

These young women go through so much anxiety, depression with many becoming suicidal as they can’t see the light at the end of the tunnel. Unfortunately for some there never will be any light. Once you get caught up in this failed system it takes years and years to unravel the mess. Some infants and toddlers at the time reach school age before being reunited. 

Wrong side of the tracks

Sometimes no matter what you do it’s never good enough and never will be. 

For some living on the wrong side of the tracks they will never be treated equally and society wonders why they turn out the way they do. Society has forced that on them. We see these people in the Courts and on the Court lists on a daily basis many for very minor offences in nature but unfortunately a consistent pattern that can quite often result in terms of imprisonment as last resorts. 

The wrong name 

Just because you have certain surnames, belong to certain families or live in a certain suburbs doesn’t make you any less of a person or second class. We are all equal but the constant put down and discrimination of these people is what creates these divisions. Unfortunately Tasmania is well known for these ‘class divisions.’ Most have seen the movie Pretty Woman and how she was treated at an upmarket store, this happened here and TVN went back to the Sandy Bay store with the young lady to sort it. A similar incident also happened at a Salamanca Place restaurant we reported on many years ago after the person had made a booking and given the restaurant their contact details. 

Accomodation 

A young mother we spoke to recently has been forced into a tiny two bedroom flat cash no questions asked. She applied for thirty homes for her 3 toddlers and infant but was rejected. Where she is now their is no lease, no receipts just under $1,000 a fortnight meaning no rental assistance from Centrelink. 

Some may ask why she was forced. The situation is she had applied for a transfer due to neighbour issues involving assaults, violence, threats and property damage so she had to go private. Housing Tasmania need to reassess this case and rehouse her as soon as possible.

Employment 

“If they live out there they can work out there” one city retailer told TVN last year when they were looking for staff. We know of situations where these young women have had to use friends addresses in their resumes to get a job. A senior staff member of one national fashion retailer said “it’s just not a good look” with another saying “they have tattoos.” In any event most are better off on Centrelink financially but wanted to work to improve themselves to be out down and degraded. 

The average person has no idea

All of this happens in Hobart on a daily basis, of course many of you would never have known and be surprised and disappointed. These women don’t want pity or handouts, they want to fend for themselves and unfortunately that sometimes takes them to the dark side where they were pushed by us very people.

©️The Vigilante News
All rights reserved

This was posted 22 hours ago

GSK and Novartis to pay $4.5 million in penalties over Voltaren Osteo Gel claimsThe Federal Court has ordered that the makers of pain relief product Voltaren Osteo Gel pay $4.5 million in penalties for breaches of the Australian Consumer Law.In May 2019 the Federal Court accepted admissions by Novartis Consumer Health Australasia Pty Ltd (Novartis) and GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare Australia Pty Ltd (GSK) that they made false or misleading representations in the marketing of Voltaren Osteo Gel and Voltaren Emulgel pain relief products.From January 2012 to March 2017, Novartis and then GSK marketed Osteo Gel as being specifically formulated and more effective than Emulgel in treating osteoarthritis related pain and inflammation even though both had the same active ingredients.Osteo Gel was often sold at a higher price than Emulgel and the gels were often displayed next to each other at pharmacies and grocery stores.“Novartis and GSK’s claims, which made Osteo Gel seem more effective than Emulgel, were unacceptable,” ACCC Commissioner Sarah Court said.“Voltaren Osteo Gel and Voltaren Emulgel were essentially the same gel and were equally effective in treating osteoarthritis symptoms.”“Novartis and GSK’s claims were particularly concerning because they set recommended retail prices for Osteo Gel above that of Emulgel, by up to 16%, and consumers were potentially misled into paying more for an identical product believing it was more effective,” Ms Court said.The misleading claims were made on product packaging and the Voltaren website by both companies and Novartis also made the claims on the My Joint Health website.In March 2017, GSK amended the Osteo Gel packaging to include the words ‘Same effective formula as Voltaren Emulgel’. The Court did not find that the revised packaging was misleading.GSK and Novartis made joint submissions on penalties with the ACCC to the Court.Both Osteo Gel and Emulgel products contain the same active ingredient, diclofenac diethylammonium gel 11.6mg/g, which acts in a non-specific manner to reduce local pain and inflammation wherever it is applied.Background:GSK acquired Novartis’ portfolio of Voltaren products in March 2016 and has been responsible for marketing and selling Voltaren products since 1 June 2016, after a 3 month transitional period.GSK is one of the largest suppliers of over-the-counter analgesic products in Australia. It also sells respiratory, oral health, skin health and nutrition / gastro-intestinal health care products.Novartis changed its company name to VOG AU Pty Ltd on 17 April 2018.The ACCC instituted proceedings against GSK and Novartis in December 2017.GSK stopped supplying the Osteo Gel product to retailers in May 2018. See MoreSee Less

GSK and Novartis to pay $4.5 million in penalties over Voltaren Osteo Gel claims

The Federal Court has ordered that the makers of pain relief product Voltaren Osteo Gel pay $4.5 million in penalties for breaches of the Australian Consumer Law.

In May 2019 the Federal Court accepted admissions by Novartis Consumer Health Australasia Pty Ltd (Novartis) and GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare Australia Pty Ltd (GSK) that they made false or misleading representations in the marketing of Voltaren Osteo Gel and Voltaren Emulgel pain relief products.

From January 2012 to March 2017, Novartis and then GSK marketed Osteo Gel as being specifically formulated and more effective than Emulgel in treating osteoarthritis related pain and inflammation even though both had the same active ingredients.

Osteo Gel was often sold at a higher price than Emulgel and the gels were often displayed next to each other at pharmacies and grocery stores.

“Novartis and GSK’s claims, which made Osteo Gel seem more effective than Emulgel, were unacceptable,” ACCC Commissioner Sarah Court said.

“Voltaren Osteo Gel and Voltaren Emulgel were essentially the same gel and were equally effective in treating osteoarthritis symptoms.”

“Novartis and GSK’s claims were particularly concerning because they set recommended retail prices for Osteo Gel above that of Emulgel, by up to 16%, and consumers were potentially misled into paying more for an identical product believing it was more effective,” Ms Court said.

The misleading claims were made on product packaging and the Voltaren website by both companies and Novartis also made the claims on the My Joint Health website.

In March 2017, GSK amended the Osteo Gel packaging to include the words ‘Same effective formula as Voltaren Emulgel’. The Court did not find that the revised packaging was misleading.

GSK and Novartis made joint submissions on penalties with the ACCC to the Court.

Both Osteo Gel and Emulgel products contain the same active ingredient, diclofenac diethylammonium gel 11.6mg/g, which acts in a non-specific manner to reduce local pain and inflammation wherever it is applied.

Background:

GSK acquired Novartis’ portfolio of Voltaren products in March 2016 and has been responsible for marketing and selling Voltaren products since 1 June 2016, after a 3 month transitional period.

GSK is one of the largest suppliers of over-the-counter analgesic products in Australia. It also sells respiratory, oral health, skin health and nutrition / gastro-intestinal health care products.

Novartis changed its company name to VOG AU Pty Ltd on 17 April 2018.

The ACCC instituted proceedings against GSK and Novartis in December 2017.

GSK stopped supplying the Osteo Gel product to retailers in May 2018.

This was posted 22 hours ago

The Australian Border Force (ABF) led Illicit Tobacco Taskforce (ITTF) has detected and seized 660 kilograms of chewing and loose leaf tobacco at the border that led to the arrest of a man in South Australia. The detection was the result of an international referral from a taskforce partner agency overseas.On 14 April 2020 ABF located within a container from India 33 boxes containing more than 73 kilograms of chewing tobacco and 587 kilograms of loose leaf tobacco.Following the seizure, officers from ABF Regional Investigations in South Australia carried out Custom Act warrants at five premises across South Australia, including two residences and three businesses resulting in a further seizure of approximately 300 kilograms of tobacco. More than half a million dollars was also seized along with a number of other evidential items.The duty evaded on the attempted import is more than $848,000.Superintendent of the Illicit Tobacco Taskforce Leo Lahey said the arrest sends a clear message about the ABF’s ability to detect illicit tobacco being imported and distributed.“People often think they can send illicit goods through the border by hiding them in other legal goods. The ABF’s highly skilled officers, intelligence and sophisticated technology ensures illicit goods are detected and work towards prosecuting those responsible for these importations,” Superintendent Lahey said.The maximum penalty for importing tobacco products with intent to defraud the Commonwealth Government of revenue is 10 years imprisonment.The ITTF combines the operational, investigative and intelligence capabilities of the ABF, Australian Taxation Office, Department of Home Affairs, Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission, Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre and Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions.The ABF are continuing their investigation into the matter.Anyone with information on the importation of illicit tobacco is encouraged to contact the ABF’s Border Watch at www.abf.gov.au/borderwatch. Referrals to the ABF can be provided anonymously. See MoreSee Less

The Australian Border Force (ABF) led Illicit Tobacco Taskforce (ITTF) has detected and seized 660 kilograms of chewing and loose leaf tobacco at the border that led to the arrest of a man in South Australia. The detection was the result of an international referral from a taskforce partner agency overseas.

On 14 April 2020 ABF located within a container from India 33 boxes containing more than 73 kilograms of chewing tobacco and 587 kilograms of loose leaf tobacco.

Following the seizure, officers from ABF Regional Investigations in South Australia carried out Custom Act warrants at five premises across South Australia, including two residences and three businesses resulting in a further seizure of approximately 300 kilograms of tobacco. More than half a million dollars was also seized along with a number of other evidential items.

The duty evaded on the attempted import is more than $848,000.

Superintendent of the Illicit Tobacco Taskforce Leo Lahey said the arrest sends a clear message about the ABF’s ability to detect illicit tobacco being imported and distributed.

“People often think they can send illicit goods through the border by hiding them in other legal goods. The ABF’s highly skilled officers, intelligence and sophisticated technology ensures illicit goods are detected and work towards prosecuting those responsible for these importations,” Superintendent Lahey said.

The maximum penalty for importing tobacco products with intent to defraud the Commonwealth Government of revenue is 10 years imprisonment.

The ITTF combines the operational, investigative and intelligence capabilities of the ABF, Australian Taxation Office, Department of Home Affairs, Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission, Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre and Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions.

The ABF are continuing their investigation into the matter.

Anyone with information on the importation of illicit tobacco is encouraged to contact the ABF’s Border Watch at www.abf.gov.au/borderwatch. Referrals to the ABF can be provided anonymously.

This was posted 22 hours ago

A Sydney man has been arrested by the Australian Border Force (ABF) led Illicit Tobacco Taskforce (ITTF) after a shipment of nearly 10 million cigarettes was intercepted at the border.On 16 May 2020, the container was intercepted in Sydney by the ITTF and examined revealing a shipment of 9.75 million cigarettes. The shipment had been mis-declared and was discovered as part of an ongoing ITTF operation.The estimated amount of duty evaded totalled just over $9.1 million.During the week of 18 May 2020 the ITTF conducted a managed delivery of the container to an address in Sydney where a man was identified, arrested and later charged with tobacco smuggling offences pursuant to section 233BABAD of the Customs Act.Further Customs Act search and seizure warrants were executed at multiple residential and commercial premises in the surrounding Sydney region where investigators seized a small quantity of gold, high value personal items and $15,000 in cash.Superintendent of the ITTF, Leo Lahey said the taskforce is committed to cracking down on the illicit tobacco market.“The ITTF continues to focus on targeting the most serious and significant organised crime syndicates trafficking in illicit tobacco.”“We are very proud of our ITTF officers and colleagues for their exceptional work which has resulted in this large seizure and arrest of a priority target for the ITTF,” Superintendent Lahey said.The maximum penalty for tobacco smuggling is 10 years’ imprisonment and/or a fine of up to five times the amount of duty evaded.Recently, ITTF Operation CABOODLE concluded, where the two men charged with the importation, possession and distribution of molasses and other tobacco products, faced court in Victoria. The pair were responsible for the attempted importation of nearly four tonnes of molasses tobacco with an estimated evaded duty value of more than $3.6 million.Moussa Al Mahmoud was convicted over the importation of tobacco products and convey/possess tobacco products in contravention of sections s233BABAD(1) and 233BABAD(2) Customs Act 1901. Mahmoud was sentenced to three years and six months imprisonment and to serve a minimum of 24 months before being eligible for parole.Mohamad Kamel Suleiman was convicted of convey/possess tobacco products in contravention of section 233BABAD(2) Customs Act 1901. Suleiman received a community corrections order for a period of 18 months and 220 hours of unpaid community work.“This outcome should send a clear message to other criminals that the ITTF will work with partner agencies to target and disrupt criminal syndicates and prosecute those involved in the illicit tobacco trade.” added Superintendent Lahey.The ITTF is an ABF-led taskforce that combines the operational, investigative and intelligence capabilities of the ABF, Australian Taxation Office (ATO), Department of Home Affairs, Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission (ACIC), Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (AUSTRAC) and Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (CDPP). See MoreSee Less

A Sydney man has been arrested by the Australian Border Force (ABF) led Illicit Tobacco Taskforce (ITTF) after a shipment of nearly 10 million cigarettes was intercepted at the border.

On 16 May 2020, the container was intercepted in Sydney by the ITTF and examined revealing a shipment of 9.75 million cigarettes. The shipment had been mis-declared and was discovered as part of an ongoing ITTF operation.

The estimated amount of duty evaded totalled just over $9.1 million.

During the week of 18 May 2020 the ITTF conducted a managed delivery of the container to an address in Sydney where a man was identified, arrested and later charged with tobacco smuggling offences pursuant to section 233BABAD of the Customs Act.

Further Customs Act search and seizure warrants were executed at multiple residential and commercial premises in the surrounding Sydney region where investigators seized a small quantity of gold, high value personal items and $15,000 in cash.

Superintendent of the ITTF, Leo Lahey said the taskforce is committed to cracking down on the illicit tobacco market.

“The ITTF continues to focus on targeting the most serious and significant organised crime syndicates trafficking in illicit tobacco.”
“We are very proud of our ITTF officers and colleagues for their exceptional work which has resulted in this large seizure and arrest of a priority target for the ITTF,” Superintendent Lahey said.

The maximum penalty for tobacco smuggling is 10 years’ imprisonment and/or a fine of up to five times the amount of duty evaded.
Recently, ITTF Operation CABOODLE concluded, where the two men charged with the importation, possession and distribution of molasses and other tobacco products, faced court in Victoria. The pair were responsible for the attempted importation of nearly four tonnes of molasses tobacco with an estimated evaded duty value of more than $3.6 million.

Moussa Al Mahmoud was convicted over the importation of tobacco products and convey/possess tobacco products in contravention of sections s233BABAD(1) and 233BABAD(2) Customs Act 1901. Mahmoud was sentenced to three years and six months imprisonment and to serve a minimum of 24 months before being eligible for parole.

Mohamad Kamel Suleiman was convicted of convey/possess tobacco products in contravention of section 233BABAD(2) Customs Act 1901. Suleiman received a community corrections order for a period of 18 months and 220 hours of unpaid community work.

“This outcome should send a clear message to other criminals that the ITTF will work with partner agencies to target and disrupt criminal syndicates and prosecute those involved in the illicit tobacco trade.” added Superintendent Lahey.

The ITTF is an ABF-led taskforce that combines the operational, investigative and intelligence capabilities of the ABF, Australian Taxation Office (ATO), Department of Home Affairs, Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission (ACIC), Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (AUSTRAC) and Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (CDPP).

This was posted 2 days ago

FBI Warns of Child Sexual Abuse Material Being Displayed During Zoom MeetingsThe COVID-19 crisis has caused many organizations and schools to conduct virtual meetings/events, some of which are open to the public. Additionally, links to many virtual events are being shared online, resulting in a lack of vetting of approved participants.During the last few months, the FBI has received more than 195 reports of incidents throughout the United States and in other countries in which a Zoom participant was able to broadcast a video depicting child sexual abuse material (CSAM). The FBI considers this activity to be a violent crime, as every time child sexual abuse material is viewed, the depicted child is re-victimized. Furthermore, anyone who inadvertently sees child sexual abuse material depicted during a virtual event is potentially a victim as well.The FBI is committed to apprehending any individual who produces or distributes child sexual abuse material and is seeking the public’s assistance to identify the person or persons responsible for these egregious crimes.If you are the administrator or host of a Zoom meeting in which CSAM was broadcast, please contact the FBI; do not delete or destroy any of your computer logs without further direction.If you recorded a Zoom meeting in which child sexual abuse material was broadcast, please contact the FBI for assistance in removing the CSAM from your device.If you believe you are a victim of a child sexual abuse material broadcast during a Zoom event, as defined above, please contact the FBI to learn about your victim rights and possible victim assistance.If you know who is committing these most recent egregious crimes, please contact the FBI.The following steps may mitigate future child sexual abuse material issues during Zoom events:Do not make meetings or classrooms public. In Zoom, there are two options to make a meeting private:Require a meeting password.Use the waiting room feature and control the admittance of guests.Do not share a link to a teleconference or classroom on an unrestricted, publicly available social media post. Provide the link directly to specific attendees.Manage screensharing options. In Zoom, change screensharing to “Host Only.” See MoreSee Less

FBI Warns of Child Sexual Abuse Material Being Displayed During Zoom Meetings

The COVID-19 crisis has caused many organizations and schools to conduct virtual meetings/events, some of which are open to the public. Additionally, links to many virtual events are being shared online, resulting in a lack of vetting of approved participants.

During the last few months, the FBI has received more than 195 reports of incidents throughout the United States and in other countries in which a Zoom participant was able to broadcast a video depicting child sexual abuse material (CSAM). The FBI considers this activity to be a violent crime, as every time child sexual abuse material is viewed, the depicted child is re-victimized. Furthermore, anyone who inadvertently sees child sexual abuse material depicted during a virtual event is potentially a victim as well.

The FBI is committed to apprehending any individual who produces or distributes child sexual abuse material and is seeking the public’s assistance to identify the person or persons responsible for these egregious crimes.

If you are the administrator or host of a Zoom meeting in which CSAM was broadcast, please contact the FBI; do not delete or destroy any of your computer logs without further direction.

If you recorded a Zoom meeting in which child sexual abuse material was broadcast, please contact the FBI for assistance in removing the CSAM from your device.

If you believe you are a victim of a child sexual abuse material broadcast during a Zoom event, as defined above, please contact the FBI to learn about your victim rights and possible victim assistance.

If you know who is committing these most recent egregious crimes, please contact the FBI.

The following steps may mitigate future child sexual abuse material issues during Zoom events:

Do not make meetings or classrooms public. In Zoom, there are two options to make a meeting private:

Require a meeting password.

Use the waiting room feature and control the admittance of guests.

Do not share a link to a teleconference or classroom on an unrestricted, publicly available social media post. Provide the link directly to specific attendees.

Manage screensharing options. In Zoom, change screensharing to “Host Only.”

This was posted 2 days ago

Vehicle lit up Seymour Street, Brighton tonight_ See MoreSee Less

Vehicle lit up Seymour Street, Brighton tonight_

This was posted 2 days ago

Update: Alleged offender in custody Sergeant Bessell of Bridgewater Police confirms a Wounding that occurred at Weily Place, Bridgewater today. At approximately 5:25pm police were called to a disturbance in Weily Place, Bridgewater involving family members. The occupant of the residence, a 67 year old male was stabbed multiple times and received non-life threatening injuries and was conveyed to the Royal Hobart Hospital for treatment. A 31 year old male offender known to police, has fled the scene and enquiries are being conducted to locate the offender. Police are seeking information from any person who may have seen a male in a red hooded top around the vicinity of Weily Place, Bridgewater around the time of the incident. Information can be provided to Sergeant Bessell at Bridgewater Police on 62302111 or information can be provided anonymously by calling Crime Stoppers on 1800 333 000 or online at crimestopperstas.com.au See MoreSee Less

Update: Alleged offender in custody 

Sergeant Bessell of Bridgewater Police confirms a Wounding that occurred at Weily Place, Bridgewater today.
 
At approximately 5:25pm police were called to a disturbance in Weily Place, Bridgewater involving family members. The occupant of the residence, a 67 year old male was stabbed multiple times and received non-life threatening injuries and was conveyed to the Royal Hobart Hospital for treatment. A 31 year old male offender known to police, has fled the scene and enquiries are being conducted to locate the offender. Police are seeking information from any person who may have seen a male in a red hooded top around the vicinity of Weily Place, Bridgewater around the time of the incident.
 
Information can be provided to Sergeant Bessell at Bridgewater Police on 62302111 or information can be provided anonymously by calling Crime Stoppers on 1800 333 000 or online at crimestopperstas.com.au

This was posted 2 days ago

STATE OF TASMANIA v X 26 MAY 2020 COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCEMr X , you have pleaded guilty to three counts of assault. The assaults were committed as acts of family violence against your partner. The first occurred on 12 August 2018. You threw a DVD player at the complainant, which hit her on the head. This caused injury which required surgery. It is common ground that you threw the DVD player in anger. However, your counsel asserts that you did not actually intend to hit the complainant, but were subjectively reckless about this consequence. This is not disputed by the prosecution. You will, accordingly, be sentenced on this factual basis. The second assault occurred on 1 October 2018. You were angry with the complainant and accused her of infidelity. You deliberately applied a lit cigarette to her right shoulder and dragged it across her skin. As you did this, you said “This is what you get for cheating on me”. When she asked you what you were doing, you said “You know you’ve been cheating on me, you dirty lying s”. The assault resulted in a burn, with immediate blistering. The injury is clearly visible on a photograph provided to me. The complainant took refuge in her son’s bedroom. It seems that she slept in there that night. You went into the bedroom and woke her at 5:30 am the following morning. You again accused her of cheating on you, and then punched her to the right side of the face. The punch caused her to feel dizzy and resulted in a large bruise around her eye and cheek. The injury can also be seen in the photographs. As I have already indicated to counsel, I will proceed on the basis that the child was not present in the house when you committed this crime. The complainant has chosen not to make a victim impact statement. I am told that she wishes to resume a relationship with you when you are released from prison. I have not been told anything about the impact or any risk to her child or children, and accordingly, that is a neutral factor in relation to sentencing. You are 35 years of age and were 32 at the time of this offending. You have a significant and concerning history of violent offending, which includes the perpetration of serious acts of family violence. At the time that you committed these crimes, you were on parole in respect of a sentence which I imposed on you on 15 December 2017 for a number of family violence offences. You were sentenced on that occasion for acts of violence perpetrated by you against your then partner, not the complainant in this case, which included punching that person to the face on two separate occasions. The assaults took place in front of that person’s children and were committed in the context of your accusations of infidelity against her. In my comments on passing that sentence, I summarised your background and criminal history to that point as follows:“You are 32 years of age. You have a lengthy and significant record of criminal offending which commenced when you were 14 years of age. A matter of concern in your criminal history includes a number of matters involving violence. As a youth, you were dealt with on several occasions for charges involving assault. You have also been convicted of such offences on several occasions as an adult. In 2010, you were convicted and sentenced to imprisonment in respect of two separate acts of violence, the first committed in 2008 and the second in 2010. The 2008 matter involved the infliction of grievous bodily harm. It is clear from the sentencing comments in respect of both matters that your attacks involved significant and protracted violence. I reiterate that in 2016, you were convicted and sentenced for an assault [the complainant].” The latter assault had been committed in May 2015. I accepted in my comments that you had used your time in custody to that point well, had completed programs dealing with family violence, and that you were genuinely committed to rehabilitation. I imposed a sentence of two years and six months’ imprisonment but provided for a non-parole period of one half of that term. The provision for early release on parole was intended to encourage your rehabilitation. You were released on parole in respect of that sentence on 23 April 2018. You committed the first of the crimes with which I am dealing today less four months later. Your moral culpability in respect of this offending is aggravated by the fact that it occurred while you were on parole in respect of a sentence imposed for similar offending. Further, your violent history, and its continuation manifested by these crimes, leads me to conclude that the sentence I impose must address personal deterrence. Your propensity to act violently towards others also requires that consideration be given to the protection of the community, in particular women with whom you may enter into a relationship. This consideration is a factor relevant to the assessment of sentence, and closely related to personal deterrence. Your counsel submits that you did benefit from the courses you performed in prison before your release on parole. He asserts that the last two assaults, in particular, occurred within the context of a continuous argument, in which both the complainant and you participated equally. He says that you were able to restrain yourself from violent conduct for the majority of the duration of this argument, apart from the two occasions on which you committed the relevant crimes. I assume that these submissions are in support of a proposition that the need for personal deterrence is less then might otherwise appear to be the case, because you were able to exercise some degree of self-control. I do not accept that your moral culpability or the need to emphasise personal deterrence in the sentence is reduced by these arguments. The infliction of any violence against a partner during the course of an argument is abhorrent to the expectations of society and rightly considered by the community to represent a grave social problem. You are not being punished for arguing, you are being punished for using violence during the course of an argument. Argument, and even the expression of restrained anger, are expected and understandable features of an intimate relationship. Persons in such a relationship are entitled to trust their partner that they will be able to argue safely, and will not be subjected to violence when doing so. The commission by you of these crimes represented a grave breach of that trust. Further, and in any event, I regard the violence inflicted by you as brutal and cruel. The use of the cigarette involved the deliberate and callous infliction of pain, it seems as a punishment for what you regarded as the complainant’s infidelity. The punch to the face was degrading, brutal and dangerous. The danger arose from the fact that it involved a forceful blow delivered to the head. I will take into account in your favour the fact that you have pleaded guilty to these crimes. The prosecution has submitted that your pleas were not entered at an early time. With respect to the utilitarian value of the plea, although the avoidance of the trial will mean that the complainant will not have to give evidence, she was required to give evidence at the preliminary proceedings. I am told that you indicated that you would enter a plea of guilty to counts 2 and 3 at an early time, but delay arose from issues relating to the factual basis of count 1. I accept that there was an issue to be resolved in respect of that count, given the prosecution’s acceptance of the mitigatory fact that you did not intend that the thrown item would actually strike the complainant. I think that reasonable allowance should be made for the utilitarian benefit of your plea of guilty. The pleas may also be some evidence of remorse, but the weight to be placed on that consideration is limited, given the demonstrated need for emphasis on personal deterrence. I will also have regard to the principles of totality. While there is a need to avoid a crushing sentence, it is necessary that the sentence is properly proportionate to the criminal conduct. It is appropriate that you serve your punishment for these crimes separately to the punishment imposed for any other crime. X , you are convicted of the crimes to which you have pleaded guilty. I impose a global sentence of two years and nine months’ imprisonment. I will provide for your early release on parole, but having regard to the fact that you committed these crimes while on parole for similar offending, and taking into account the circumstances of the crimes and your history of violent offending, I think that the minimum term you should serve in prison is a period of 21 months. Accordingly, I order that you not be eligible for parole until you have served 21 months of the sentence. I am told that you finished serving the sentence imposed by me on 24 October 2019, and have been held on remand since then. I will, accordingly, backdate the sentence I have imposed to 25 October 2019. This backdating does not technically amount to an order that the sentence be served cumulatively upon the previous sentence. I cannot make such an order in any event because you have completed that sentence. Accordingly, the non-parole period relevant to this sentence will commence from 25 October 2019. I have power to make a family violence order. However, both counsel have requested that I not do so. There is an interim order in place made by a magistrate, and its future will be considered by that court. I am satisfied that this adequately deals with the question of protection of the complainant and her children and, accordingly, I decline to make such an order. Finally, pursuant to s 13A of the Family Violence Act, I direct that each crime be recorded on your criminal record as a family violence offence. See MoreSee Less

This was posted 2 days ago

STATE OF TASMANIA v X. 26 MAY 2020 COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCEMr X, you have pleaded guilty to one count of dangerous driving. You have also pleaded guilty to the summary offences of evade police with aggravated circumstances and driving whilst disqualified. You committed these offences on 13 October 2018. At that time, you were subject to a court ordered disqualification, which had been imposed on 7 June 2018 for offences, which included evading police with aggravated circumstances, and which were committed on 1 March 2018. You were also subject to a community service order and a probation order, which had been imposed as part of that sentence. Finally, you were at large, having failed to appear in court in breach of bail with respect to a charge of dangerous driving alleged to have been committed at the same time as the evade police. You had been committed to this Court in respect of that charge. You eventually pleaded guilty to that charge, and were sentenced on 31 January 2019 by the Chief Justice to 22 months’ imprisonment, commencing on 17 October 2018. The driving relevant to this case commenced at about 6.20 pm, when you were seen driving a vehicle at Bridgewater by police in two separate police vehicles. One of the vehicles attempted to intercept you by travelling behind you and activating its emergency lights and sirens. You failed to stop, and attempted to avoid interception by travelling between the suburban street that you were on and the East Derwent Highway, through a vacant block connecting the two roads. At one point, your vehicle became airborne as it travelled over a mound of dirt on the block, before it entered the highway. This manoeuvre obviously resulted in your vehicle travelling across two pedestrian footpaths. Your speed through this part of the journey was in excess of 80 km/h. The limit in this built up residential area is 50 km/h. After reaching the highway, you increased the speed of your vehicle to in excess of 100 km/h. At one point, you crossed into the path of an oncoming vehicle as you overtook another vehicle. The oncoming vehicle was forced to brake and take evasive action to avoid a collision. Further along the highway, you crossed a double white line on a bend while overtaking three motorcycles at speed. Again, you did this in the face of oncoming traffic. The oncoming vehicles, which included a police vehicle, were forced to brake to avoid collision. At this point, you were travelling in excess of 100 km/h despite a speed limit of 80 km/h. You then travelled over the Bowen Bridge towards Glenorchy. As you were leaving the bridge, you travelled onto the wrong side of the road at an estimated speed of 120 km/h. Your vehicle was unstable and wobbling. A woman driving a vehicle in the opposite direction, on the correct side of the road, was forced to brake suddenly and drive onto the grass verge in order to avoid collision with you. Her father and three month old son were passengers in her vehicle. Your vehicle was not seen again until it was located by police at an address in Glenorchy some hours later. You were arrested by police one week later, after a further episode of evading police and driving while disqualified. When interviewed about this incident, you denied having driven the relevant vehicle. I regard this as a serious case of dangerous driving. The driving occurred over a considerable distance, approximately 15 kilometres, and lasted for a total time of 15 minutes. It occurred in residential built-up areas and on major arterial roads and a highway. It is a matter of real concern that you endangered the lives of police and other road users. You also put yourself at considerable risk. On a number of occasions, you drove directly into the path of oncoming traffic at considerable speed. Head-on collision was only avoided by evasive action taken by other drivers. Further, the driving occurred in the context of your attempt to escape from police. This added an aspect of desperation to your conduct, which I have no doubt increased the inherent danger involved in your driving. General deterrence and denunciation of such conduct are important sentencing considerations. You are 22 years of age and were 21 when you committed these offences. Prior to the sentence imposed on 7 June 2018, you had been convicted of a number of other traffic offences, including driving whilst disqualified and driving with an illicit drug present in blood. Your previous driving had also been the subject of infringement notices from time to time. I am told that at the time of committing this and you earlier crimes, you were using methylamphetamine. You started to take drugs as a perceived means of dealing with a difficult relationship breakdown. Your counsel says that you are now older, that you have realised that you cannot continue to break the law, and have decided that you want to change your life. He asks me to accept your plea of guilty as an indication that you are prepared to take responsibility for your past conduct. You have young children and you claim that this motivates you to achieve rehabilitation. Of course, your counsel also acknowledges that your plea was entered at a late stage of the proceedings. The prosecutor asserts that it was in response to a strong prosecution case, because the police, who originally recognised you driving, knew you well. The case was due to proceed to trial last year but you failed to appear in court. Despite these matters, I think that you should receive some credit for the plea. It has avoided a trial which would have been of some length, required a number of members of the public to give evidence and, of course, would have utilised precious court time, in circumstances where that time is in short supply because of the current health crisis. This does increase the utilitarian value of the plea. However, I am not convinced that the plea is evidence of a genuine commitment to rehabilitation. After you were released on parole in late 2019, you committed a number of further offences which led to the imposition of a further term of imprisonment and the revocation of parole. I hope you have developed a true commitment to reform. You are still a young person. However, in order to achieve rehabilitation, you must first deal with the consequences of your past conduct, and show that you have a genuine commitment to reform. I will provide another opportunity for release on parole, in order to support this commitment, if it is demonstrated by you. However, the persistence of your offending does require some emphasis on personal deterrence. Given that you are presently serving the sentence imposed by the Chief Justice, together with a concurrent sentence imposed in April 2020 by the Magistrates Court for the offending while you were on parole, it is necessary to have regard to the principles of totality. Although I am dealing with conduct which is completely separate to that to which the other sentences relate, I must ensure, particularly having regard to your young age, that the overall period in custody is not unduly crushing. Accordingly, although the objective seriousness of your offending requires imposition of a significant term of imprisonment, I will modify the head sentence and make provision for early release on parole in order to reflect these considerations. The orders I make are as follows: 1 You are convicted of the crime and the offences to which you have pleaded guilty. 2 For the offence of evading police with aggravated circumstances, you are sentenced to 6 months’ imprisonment, which will be served cumulatively upon the sentence of 7 months’ imprisonment imposed by the Magistrates Court on 16 April 2020. You will not be eligible for parole until you have served one half of that sentence. Further, I impose a driving disqualification of two years, which will commence on the date of your actual release from prison. I understand that it may, therefore, operate concurrently with the disqualification imposed by the Chief Justice, at least for some time.3 For the crime of dangerous driving and the offence of disqualified driving, I impose a global sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment. You will not be eligible for parole until you have served one half of that sentence. This sentence will be served cumulatively upon the sentence imposed in respect of the evade police charge. Further, I impose a global driving disqualification of 18 months, which will operate cumulatively upon the disqualification imposed for the evade police charge. Hence, the overall disqualification in respect of all offences, which are subject to this sentence, is an aggregate period of three years and six months commencing on the date that you are released from prison.4 For the purposes of s 92A(3) of the Sentencing Act, I specify the following: (a) The total term of imprisonment which you are liable to serve in respect of all of the above sentences imposed by me today is 2 years, commencing from the end of the said 7 month sentence, which is 22 July 2020.(b) Having regard to the provisions of s71 of the Corrections Act 1997, the total period that you must serve before you become eligible for parole is the aggregate of the minimum terms relating to each of the said sentences, which is a period of 12 months. This non-parole period is cumulative upon the minimum term of the sentence imposed by the Magistrates Court, which expires on 22 July 2020. The aggregate non-parole period of 12 months will therefore commence on that date.(c) By way of comment, I observe that the effect of this order is that the aggregate sentence and non-parole period operate concurrently with the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the Chief Justice. I have taken this course in order to moderate the overall time that you spend in custody, having regard to your age and the principles of totality. Further, had I made the sentence cumulative upon that imposed by the Chief Justice, the effect of s 71 would have been that the non-parole period imposed by me would have been automatically backdated to the end of the non-parole period relevant to that sentence. Having regard to the history of this matter, that would have resulted in an inappropriate and unrealistic outcome. See MoreSee Less

STATE OF TASMANIA v X. 26 MAY 2020 COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE
Mr  X, you have pleaded guilty to one count of dangerous driving. You have also pleaded guilty to the summary offences of evade police with aggravated circumstances and driving whilst disqualified.
 You committed these offences on 13 October 2018. At that time, you were subject to a court ordered disqualification, which had been imposed on 7 June 2018 for offences, which included evading police with aggravated circumstances, and which were committed on 1 March 2018. You were also subject to a community service order and a probation order, which had been imposed as part of that sentence. Finally, you were at large, having failed to appear in court in breach of bail with respect to a charge of dangerous driving alleged to have been committed at the same time as the evade police. You had been committed to this Court in respect of that charge. You eventually pleaded guilty to that charge, and were sentenced on 31 January 2019 by the Chief Justice to 22 months’ imprisonment, commencing on 17 October 2018.
 The driving relevant to this case commenced at about 6.20 pm, when you were seen driving a vehicle at Bridgewater by police in two separate police vehicles. One of the vehicles attempted to intercept you by travelling behind you and activating its emergency lights and sirens. You failed to stop, and attempted to avoid interception by travelling between the suburban street that you were on and the East Derwent Highway, through a vacant block connecting the two roads. At one point, your vehicle became airborne as it travelled over a mound of dirt on the block, before it entered the highway. This manoeuvre obviously resulted in your vehicle travelling across two pedestrian footpaths. Your speed through this part of the journey was in excess of 80 km/h. The limit in this built up residential area is 50 km/h.
 After reaching the highway, you increased the speed of your vehicle to in excess of 100 km/h. At one point, you crossed into the path of an oncoming vehicle as you overtook another vehicle. The oncoming vehicle was forced to brake and take evasive action to avoid a collision. Further along the highway, you crossed a double white line on a bend while overtaking three motorcycles at speed. Again, you did this in the face of oncoming traffic. The oncoming vehicles, which included a police vehicle, were forced to brake to avoid collision. At this point, you were travelling in excess of 100 km/h despite a speed limit of 80 km/h.
 You then travelled over the Bowen Bridge towards Glenorchy. As you were leaving the bridge, you travelled onto the wrong side of the road at an estimated speed of 120 km/h. Your vehicle was unstable and wobbling. A woman driving a vehicle in the opposite direction, on the correct side of the road, was forced to brake suddenly and drive onto the grass verge in order to avoid collision with you. Her father and three month old son were passengers in her vehicle. Your vehicle was not seen again until it was located by police at an address in Glenorchy some hours later.
 You were arrested by police one week later, after a further episode of evading police and driving while disqualified. When interviewed about this incident, you denied having driven the relevant vehicle.
 I regard this as a serious case of dangerous driving. The driving occurred over a considerable distance, approximately 15 kilometres, and lasted for a total time of 15 minutes. It occurred in residential built-up areas and on major arterial roads and a highway. It is a matter of real concern that you endangered the lives of police and other road users. You also put yourself at considerable risk. On a number of occasions, you drove directly into the path of oncoming traffic at considerable speed. Head-on collision was only avoided by evasive action taken by other drivers. Further, the driving occurred in the context of your attempt to escape from police. This added an aspect of desperation to your conduct, which I have no doubt increased the inherent danger involved in your driving. General deterrence and denunciation of such conduct are important sentencing considerations.
 You are 22 years of age and were 21 when you committed these offences. Prior to the sentence imposed on 7 June 2018, you had been convicted of a number of other traffic offences, including driving whilst disqualified and driving with an illicit drug present in blood. Your previous driving had also been the subject of infringement notices from time to time. I am told that at the time of committing this and you earlier crimes, you were using methylamphetamine. You started to take drugs as a perceived means of dealing with a difficult relationship breakdown. Your counsel says that you are now older, that you have realised that you cannot continue to break the law, and have decided that you want to change your life. He asks me to accept your plea of guilty as an indication that you are prepared to take responsibility for your past conduct. You have young children and you claim that this motivates you to achieve rehabilitation. Of course, your counsel also acknowledges that your plea was entered at a late stage of the proceedings. The prosecutor asserts that it was in response to a strong prosecution case, because the police, who originally recognised you driving, knew you well. The case was due to proceed to trial last year but you failed to appear in court. Despite these matters, I think that you should receive some credit for the plea. It has avoided a trial which would have been of some length, required a number of members of the public to give evidence and, of course, would have utilised precious court time, in circumstances where that time is in short supply because of the current health crisis. This does increase the utilitarian value of the plea. However, I am not convinced that the plea is evidence of a genuine commitment to rehabilitation. After you were released on parole in late 2019, you committed a number of further offences which led to the imposition of a further term of imprisonment and the revocation of parole. I hope you have developed a true commitment to reform. You are still a young person. However, in order to achieve rehabilitation, you must first deal with the consequences of your past conduct, and show that you have a genuine commitment to reform. I will provide another opportunity for release on parole, in order to support this commitment, if it is demonstrated by you. However, the persistence of your offending does require some emphasis on personal deterrence.
 Given that you are presently serving the sentence imposed by the Chief Justice, together with a concurrent sentence imposed in April 2020 by the Magistrates Court for the offending while you were on parole, it is necessary to have regard to the principles of totality. Although I am dealing with conduct which is completely separate to that to which the other sentences relate, I must ensure, particularly having regard to your young age, that the overall period in custody is not unduly crushing. Accordingly, although the objective seriousness of your offending requires imposition of a significant term of imprisonment, I will modify the head sentence and make provision for early release on parole in order to reflect these considerations.
 The orders I make are as follows:
 1          You are convicted of the crime and the offences to which you have pleaded guilty.
 2          For the offence of evading police with aggravated circumstances, you are sentenced to 6 months’ imprisonment, which will be served cumulatively upon the sentence of 7 months’ imprisonment imposed by the Magistrates Court on 16 April 2020. You will not be eligible for parole until you have served one half of that sentence. Further, I impose a driving disqualification of two years, which will commence on the date of your actual release from prison. I understand that it may, therefore, operate concurrently with the disqualification imposed by the Chief Justice, at least for some time.
3          For the crime of dangerous driving and the offence of disqualified driving, I impose a global sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment. You will not be eligible for parole until you have served one half of that sentence. This sentence will be served cumulatively upon the sentence imposed in respect of the evade police charge. Further, I impose a global driving disqualification of 18 months, which will operate cumulatively upon the disqualification imposed for the evade police charge. Hence, the overall disqualification in respect of all offences, which are subject to this sentence, is an aggregate period of three years and six months commencing on the date that you are released from prison.
4          For the purposes of s 92A(3) of the Sentencing Act, I specify the following:
 (a)        The total term of imprisonment which you are liable to serve in respect of all of the above sentences imposed by me today is 2 years, commencing from the end of the said 7 month sentence, which is 22 July 2020.
(b)        Having regard to the provisions of s71 of the Corrections Act 1997, the total period that you must serve before you become eligible for parole is the aggregate of the minimum terms relating to each of the said sentences, which is a period of 12 months. This non-parole period is cumulative upon the minimum term of the sentence imposed by the Magistrates Court, which expires on 22 July 2020. The aggregate non-parole period of 12 months will therefore commence on that date.
(c)        By way of comment, I observe that the effect of this order is that the aggregate sentence and non-parole period operate concurrently with the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the Chief Justice. I have taken this course in order to moderate the overall time that you spend in custody, having regard to your age and the principles of totality. Further, had I made the sentence cumulative upon that imposed by the Chief Justice, the effect of s 71 would have been that the non-parole period imposed by me would have been automatically backdated to the end of the non-parole period relevant to that sentence. Having regard to the history of this matter, that would have resulted in an inappropriate and unrealistic outcome.

This was posted 2 days ago

AFP Deputy Commissioner Investigations Mr Ian McCartney issues the following statement: The AFP has made the decision to finalise our investigation into the unauthorised disclosure of a national security document which resulted in the execution of a search warrant at the home of journalist, Annika Smethurst, in June 2019.This investigation began in April 2018, when the AFP received a complaint from the Secretary of the Department of Defence regarding the publication of national security information in a news article.On 15 April 2020, following a challenge to the High Court of Australia, the High Court determined the warrant used in the execution of the search warrant in relation to Annika Smethurst was invalid.However, the High Court declined to order the return or destruction of the seized material.The AFP accepts and respects the decision of the High Court.Following this decision, the AFP has reviewed all available material and determined there is insufficient evidence to progress the investigation in relation to the unauthorised disclosure of the classified document.As a result, a decision has been made to finalise the investigation.I acknowledge the significant media and community interest in this matter as it relates to press freedom, in what has been a complex investigation.Firstly, I want to reiterate that at all times our investigators have acted in good faith during this investigation.Investigating breaches of Commonwealth criminal law is the AFP’s job.This was a serious breach of national security information that needed to be investigated.We did our job, we investigated and moving forward we will continue to do our job in the many thousands of investigations the AFP undertakes in serving the Australian community. See MoreSee Less

AFP Deputy Commissioner Investigations Mr Ian McCartney issues the following statement: 
 
The AFP has made the decision to finalise our investigation into the unauthorised disclosure of a national security document which resulted in the execution of a search warrant at the home of journalist, Annika Smethurst, in June 2019.

This investigation began in April 2018, when the AFP received a complaint from the Secretary of the Department of Defence regarding the publication of national security information in a news article.

On 15 April 2020, following a challenge to the High Court of Australia, the High Court determined the warrant used in the execution of the search warrant in relation to Annika Smethurst was invalid.

However, the High Court declined to order the return or destruction of the seized material.

The AFP accepts and respects the decision of the High Court.

Following this decision, the AFP has reviewed all available material and determined there is insufficient evidence to progress the investigation in relation to the unauthorised disclosure of the classified document.

As a result, a decision has been made to finalise the investigation.

I acknowledge the significant media and community interest in this matter as it relates to press freedom, in what has been a complex investigation.

Firstly, I want to reiterate that at all times our investigators have acted in good faith during this investigation.

Investigating breaches of Commonwealth criminal law is the AFP’s job.

This was a serious breach of national security information that needed to be investigated.

We did our job, we investigated and moving forward we will continue to do our job in the many thousands of investigations the AFP undertakes in serving the Australian community.

This was posted 2 days ago

A Japanese tourist caught by Australian Border Force (ABF) officers in possession of more than 1,000 videos containing child abuse material has been sentenced to 16 months jail by a Perth Judge.Now aged 31, the man was arrested at Perth International Airport on 2 November 2019 following his arrival on a flight from Tokyo.During the initial examination of his mobile phone officers located more than 200 video files and images which depicted the sexual abuse or exploitation of children.A subsequent digital forensic examination uncovered hundreds more videos stored on an Application in the phone.The court was told a total of 1,091 videos categorised as child abuse material were located.The man pleaded guilty to one count of Attempting to Import a Prohibited Import being Tier 2 goods (Child Abuse Material) under s.233BAB(5) of the Customs Act 1901.Perth District Court Judge Fiona Vernon yesterday sentenced the man to 16 months imprisonment, to serve a minimum of eight months from the date of arrest, and a $5,000 good behaviour order for a further eight months following his release.The man’s tourist visa was cancelled on the date of his arrest and he will be removed from Australia once released from prison.The maximum penalty for the import or export of child abuse material is 10 years’ imprisonment and/or a fine of up to $525,000. See MoreSee Less

A Japanese tourist caught by Australian Border Force (ABF) officers in possession of more than 1,000 videos containing child abuse material has been sentenced to 16 months jail by a Perth Judge.

Now aged 31, the man was arrested at Perth International Airport on 2 November 2019 following his arrival on a flight from Tokyo.

During the initial examination of his mobile phone officers located more than 200 video files and images which depicted the sexual abuse or exploitation of children.

A subsequent digital forensic examination uncovered hundreds more videos stored on an Application in the phone.

The court was told a total of 1,091 videos categorised as child abuse material were located.

The man pleaded guilty to one count of Attempting to Import a Prohibited Import being Tier 2 goods (Child Abuse Material) under s.233BAB(5) of the Customs Act 1901.

Perth District Court Judge Fiona Vernon yesterday sentenced the man to 16 months imprisonment, to serve a minimum of eight months from the date of arrest, and a $5,000 good behaviour order for a further eight months following his release.

The man’s tourist visa was cancelled on the date of his arrest and he will be removed from Australia once released from prison.

The maximum penalty for the import or export of child abuse material is 10 years’ imprisonment and/or a fine of up to $525,000.

This was posted 2 days ago

See MoreSee Less

This was posted 3 days ago

See MoreSee Less

This was posted 3 days ago

ABF statement regarding the arrival of the livestock carrier AL KUWAIT in WAThe Australian Border Force is responsible for the Customs Act, contraband, and for the Migration Act, for making sure that people that arrive at Australia have got a visa that allows them to do so.The ABF completed all customs and immigration related clearances. Further to reports today relating to the Al Kuwait, the ABF received no reports of illness on board the vessel on the day of or prior to its arrival in port. See MoreSee Less

ABF statement regarding the arrival of the livestock carrier AL KUWAIT in WA

The Australian Border Force is responsible for the Customs Act, contraband, and for the Migration Act, for making sure that people that arrive at Australia have got a visa that allows them to do so.

The ABF completed all customs and immigration related clearances. Further to reports today relating to the Al Kuwait, the ABF received no reports of illness on board the vessel on the day of or prior to its arrival in port.

This was posted 3 days ago

Tasmania Police advise that a Cyclist has died after suffering an apparent medical episode on St Leonards RoadA 76-year-old male cyclist has died after suffering an apparent medical episode while riding on St Leonards Road, Launceston this morning.Police would like to thank the members of the public who provided assistance to the man until emergency services arrived at the scene.There were no other vehicles or people involved in the incident. One lane of the road was closed for close to an hour.Our thoughts are with the family and friends of the man who died. A report is being prepared for the Coroner. See MoreSee Less

Tasmania Police advise that a Cyclist has died after suffering an apparent medical episode on St Leonards Road

A 76-year-old male cyclist has died after suffering an apparent medical episode while riding on St Leonards Road, Launceston this morning.

Police would like to thank the members of the public who provided assistance to the man until emergency services arrived at the scene.

There were no other vehicles or people involved in the incident. One lane of the road was closed for close to an hour.
Our thoughts are with the family and friends of the man who died. A report is being prepared for the Coroner.
Load Some More Posts!