Breaking News

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

This was posted 13 minutes ago

Our Hobart subscribers what are you doing this No Show day Thursday? See MoreSee Less

Our Hobart subscribers what are you doing this No Show day Thursday?

This was posted 45 minutes ago

Tasmania Police located a missing person at Gagebrook a short time ago. A number of Police were seen by subscribers searching paddocks, the East Derwent Highway and the river banks tonight. Police also had a drone operating to assist the search. See MoreSee Less

Tasmania Police located a missing person at Gagebrook a short time ago. A number of Police were seen by subscribers searching paddocks, the East Derwent Highway and the river banks tonight. Police also had a drone operating to assist the search.

This was posted 55 minutes ago

All Tasmanian Court lists are published daily on our website:www.thevigilantenews.com.au See MoreSee Less

All Tasmanian Court lists are published daily on our website:

www.thevigilantenews.com.au

This was posted 2 hours ago

Whilst drug trafficking is not condoned by society either should foul play in law enforcement stings be.We are well aware of controlled deliveries whereby state and Australian Federal Police intercept parcels containing drugs and pose as couriers delivering them only for minutes later the recipient to be raided. It has been alleged that some perfectly innocent parcels have been intercepted by law enforcement to have drugs planted in them to assist government agencies clean up rates. Whilst we accept this could happen in known crime families or traffickers the allegation is still quite serious if true.Over the years we know that drug traffickers have used innocent peoples addresses for parcel deliveries sometimes signing for them after they have waited for the courier or postal delivery officer. Many who work and are not at home during the day fall victim of this where express post parcels are sent.People should always check before signing, accepting or collecting items from couriers warehouses or post offices or even at home deliveries. If you haven’t ordered anything and a parcel arrives you should check if you know the sender and return address if it has one, and if in doubt refuse it.If you are expecting parcels again check off the senders details tracking details and location and description of contents. If you have ordered a phone cover for instance and a bulky item turns up be vigilant.Controlled deliveries are often used by law enforcement and legitimate operations are acceptable but ones used to set up and target known criminals just to reduce crime rates is totally unacceptable and against the law. We also would question such methods that go against mail tampering and interfering with mail that carry significant penalties. See MoreSee Less

Whilst drug trafficking is not condoned by society either should foul play in law enforcement stings be.

We are well aware of controlled deliveries whereby state and Australian Federal Police intercept parcels containing drugs and pose as couriers delivering them only for minutes later the recipient to be raided. 

It has been alleged that some perfectly innocent parcels have been intercepted by law enforcement to have drugs planted in them to assist government agencies clean up rates. Whilst we accept this could happen in known crime families or traffickers the allegation is still quite serious if true.

Over the years we know that drug traffickers have used innocent peoples addresses for parcel deliveries sometimes signing for them after they have waited for the courier or postal delivery officer. Many who work and are not at home during the day fall victim of this where express post parcels are sent.

People should always check before signing, accepting or collecting items from couriers warehouses or post offices or even at home deliveries. If you haven’t ordered anything and a parcel arrives you should check if you know the sender and return address if it has one, and if in doubt refuse it.

If you are expecting parcels again check off the senders details tracking details and location and description of contents. If you have ordered a phone cover for instance and a bulky item turns up be vigilant.

Controlled deliveries are often used by law enforcement and legitimate operations are acceptable but ones used to set up and target known criminals just to reduce crime rates is totally unacceptable and against the law. 

We also would question such methods that go against mail tampering and interfering with mail that carry significant penalties.

This was posted 2 hours ago

The busiest day of the year for Tasmania Police is only a matter of days away. The bad behaviour of some Tasmanians on grand final day is totally disgraceful and acts of violence drunkenness and drink and drug driving is nothing but appalling. A large majority of Police are rostered on for this day and hopefully won’t tolerate those who choose to do the wrong thing. No doubt other emergency services including the RHH emergency department will also be busy. See MoreSee Less

The busiest day of the year for Tasmania Police is only a matter of days away. The bad behaviour of some Tasmanians on grand final day is totally disgraceful and acts of violence drunkenness and drink and drug driving is nothing but appalling. A large majority of Police are rostered on for this day and hopefully won’t tolerate those who choose to do the wrong thing. No doubt other emergency services including the RHH emergency department will also be busy.

This was posted 3 hours ago

STATE OF TASMANIA v W 16 OCTOBER 2020 COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE W , you plead guilty to trafficking in a controlled substance, possession of stolen firearms and unlawful trafficking in firearms. I also agreed to deal with the summary charges of possessing and using methamphetamine and possessing a thing used for administration of a controlled drug, two counts of possessing a firearm when not a holder of a license and one count of conveying a firearm contrary to the prescribed safety requirements. During 11 and 12 January 2020 a house at Boat Harbour was broken into twice. Among the things stolen were three firearms, a Ruger .22 long rifle, a Saco .22 250 rifle and a Sportco single barrel shotgun, all taken from the firearms safe along with boxes of ammunition. At about 5.30 pm on 12 January 2020 the police searched your home in Acton. The Saco rifle was found in the boot of a vehicle there. You were arrested and interviewed. You admitted only that you were aware that the rifle had been brought by others to your property but claimed not to have seen it, and that others had tried to sell you the other two firearms for drugs or money. A few days later on 17 January 2020, CCTV recordings from your home were seized. Examination of the CCTV, with other evidence, disclosed that over the course of 11 and 12 January all of the firearms were taken to your home by two men you knew. You were interviewed again on 11 March 2020 about the firearms and other matters. You admitted that all three firearms were taken to you, that the two men asked you to try to sell two of them, and that on the day you received them you handed them on to a third man who was going to sell them for you for $500 each. By delivering the firearms to that person for that purpose you trafficked in them. The Ruger rifle and the Sportco Shotgun were recovered from a car he was driving on 3 February 2020 after he tried to evade the police. The shotgun was loaded and he had other ammunition in his pocket. He is a person with a long criminal history including for violence. By possessing those firearms and by conveying them you committed the summary offences to which I have referred. The facts related to the drug trafficking charge commence from the police search conducted on 12 January. The summary charges arise from that same search. You produced two snaplock bags containing a total of 18 grams of methylamphetamine. One bag was in your handbag with a set of scales, and the other was concealed in your clothing. The police also found a smaller snap lock bag containing one gram of Ice, Ice pipes and foil sticks. When you were interviewed you admitted that you were an Ice user, but you had purchased a quantity of the drug on credit for $3000 intending to sell enough of it in point or half a gram quantities to cover your costs, and to use the rest. You were charged and bailed. About two months later, on 11 March 2020, you were a passenger in a car intercepted by the police in Burnie. They found a snap lock bag concealed behind the glove box which contained what was later established to be 50.47 grams of methylamphetamine. In the car you had scales, empty snap lock bags and $3740 in cash. You admitted when interviewed that, following a short break after your earlier arrest, you had been purchasing Ice on credit for sale to sub-dealers in quantities up to an ounce. You admitted that for each of the six weeks or so following the beginning of February 2020 you handled three to four ounces, which is between about 80 and 110 grams, of Ice, and the turnover was between $50,000 and $70,000. You said you were selling to sub-dealers, so the total value of the drug sold to end users would have been much more. The State does not now dispute the contention that the cash you had was yours but not sourced from drug sales. You are aged 38. You had a disadvantaged child hood and were subjected to family breakdown, You have held employment. You did not regularly use illicit drugs until about 10 years ago when you commenced a new relationship. You quickly became a heavy user of amphetamine and methylamphetamine. You have an extensive criminal record which commences when you were 17. Prior to 2015 there are some convictions for violence, dishonesty and anti-social offending, but your record till then was mostly for driving offences. Then in October 2015 you were fined and made subject to a probation order for a series of driving offences, one of which was driving with a drug in your blood. In June 2017 you were sentenced by a magistrate to a short suspended term of imprisonment, and community service for numerous offences committed during 2016 and early 2017. They are mostly driving offences, some of which involve driving with a drug in your blood, but also include selling, possessing and using a controlled drug. In November 2017 you were sentenced to imprisonment for six months, most of which was suspended for two years, and probation, again for offences including driving offences, dishonesty and common assaults committed in 2016 and early 2017. Those sentences did not deter you. You continued to offend and, on 18 March 2019, you were sentenced to imprisonment for a total term of 12 months and four days from 14 December 2018. That sentence was imposed for more offences of dishonesty and drug related driving offences, and included activation of the previously suspended sentence. You have a history of failing to comply with the conditions of community based sentencing orders. On 2 July 2020 you were sentenced by Brett J to imprisonment for 12 months from 19 June 2020 with eligibility for parole after 7 months for a serious assault committed on 29 August 2019. That sentence is relevant to totality but is for different criminal conduct and no reduction in sentence of substance is called for. Attempts have been made to address your addiction. A drug treatment bail order was made in 2018 but failed. You successfully completed the Equips Addiction program while in prison in 2019 but relapsed soon after your release. While you were in custody in 2019 efforts were made to address your ongoing mental health issues with some good results, but again not enough to prevent the crimes you committed not long after your release. Imprisonment will be made more difficult for you because your mother is terminally ill and may die while you are in custody, but such is the price of committing serious crime. Many details of your drug trafficking conduct are based on your admissions to the police. It is in your favour that you have pleaded guilty. By doing so you have facilitated justice at a time when trials are significantly delayed as a result of the pandemic. Your sentence will be reduced as a result. Even so, you admit guilt to serious crimes. Trafficking in firearms is serious because of the strong link between stolen firearms and crimes involving violence and dishonesty. These guns were not registered to you and it was obvious that they had been dishonestly obtained. Stolen firearms almost inevitably end up in the hands of criminals, as they did here. I take into account that you did not initiate the attempted sales and that you acted on the request of others. The same cannot be said about the drug trafficking. It has frequently been said in this court that those who traffic in illicit drugs trade on the misery of others and can expect harsh punishment. Yours is a serious example of drug trafficking. I accept that you were a drug user in the grip of an addiction, probably desperate to obtain your own supply. But that goes nowhere near explaining the nature and scale of this trafficking and the nature of your involvement. Ice is highly addictive and damaging to health. It causes great harm to those who become addicted to it and the people around them. Its use and trade generates a great deal of other criminal activity, especially serious crimes of dishonesty and violence. You have no prior convictions for trafficking but apart from your guilty plea and admissions there is no reason for any lenience. Your criminal conduct continued even after you had been apprehended once for both drug and firearm offences and admitted to bail. By acting in that manner you displayed contempt for the law and for authority. A significant term of imprisonment is the only appropriate sentence. I am to determine a sentence which is a fair and just reflection of your total criminality. I was asked to assess, in accordance with the Crime (Confiscation of Profits) Act 1993, s 22, the value of the benefits derived by you from the commission of the offence in the sum of $50,000 and order that you pay to the State a pecuniary penalty equal to that sum. I decline to make it. I have a discretion to make such an order at all, but if the order is made it must be made in the sum assessed. It is a significant sum. If it is made you will always be indebted under the order unless and until you satisfy it. There is no suggestion that you have in some way saved your ill-gotten gains or converted them into significant assets that could be applied in discharge of such the order. You already owe $7,000 to Centrelink, $1500 to Housing Tasmania and more than $17,000 in outstanding fines. I think that, in the circumstances outlined to me, that there is no realistic prospect that you will ever be able to pay off a penalty in that amount, or any meaningful part of it. W , you are convicted on each count to which you have pleaded guilty. I order that the two glass smoking devices and the electronic scales seized by police on 12 January 2020 and the electronic scales seized on 11 March 2020 are forfeited to the State. Pursuant to the Misuse of Drugs Act 2001, s 36B, I assess the reasonable expense of and attending the analysis or examination of the controlled substance as $358 and award that sum against you as part of the costs of the prosecutor. You have 28 days from your release to pay that sum. The personal use, possession and smoking device charges on complaint 50681/2020, counts 1, 3 and 4, the summary firearm charges on complaint 50976/2020, counts 4, 5 and 6 and the further use charge which is count 2 on complaint 50974/2020, in light of the other offences I propose to impose, warrant only a conviction without further order. Count 2 on complaint 50681/2020 is subsumed in the indictment. On indictment 269/2020, counts 1 and 2, the firearms charges, I impose one sentence. You are sentenced to imprisonment for three months cumulative to the term that you are currently serving. I order that you not be eligible for parole until you have served half of that term. On indictment 266/2020, trafficking in a controlled substance, you are sentenced to imprisonment for two years and four months, cumulative to the term just imposed. I order that you not be eligible for parole until you have served half of that term. The result is a total term of two years and seven months cumulative to the term that you are currently serving with eligibility for parole after having served half of the sentences that I have imposed. [On 16 October 2020, following imposition of the sentence, Pearce J was informed that the defendant had been in custody between 11 March 2020 and 2 April 2020 and that the period of custody had not been taken into account in any other sentence. As a result, on 19 October 2020, Pearce J corrected the sentence imposed on 16 October 2020 by ordering that 23 days of the three month term imposed on counts 1 and 2 on indictment 269/2020 be served concurrently with the term of imprisonment imposed by Brett J on 2 July 2020 and that the balance be served cumulatively.]File pic See MoreSee Less

STATE OF TASMANIA v W  16 OCTOBER 2020 COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE
 
 W , you plead guilty to trafficking in a controlled substance, possession of stolen firearms and unlawful trafficking in firearms. I also agreed to deal with the summary charges of possessing and using methamphetamine and possessing a thing used for administration of a controlled drug, two counts of possessing a firearm when not a holder of a license and one count of conveying a firearm contrary to the prescribed safety requirements.
 
During 11 and 12 January 2020 a house at Boat Harbour was broken into twice. Among the things stolen were three firearms, a Ruger .22 long rifle, a Saco .22 250 rifle and a Sportco single barrel shotgun, all taken from the firearms safe along with boxes of ammunition. At about 5.30 pm on 12 January 2020 the police searched your home in Acton. The Saco rifle was found in the boot of a vehicle there. You were arrested and interviewed. You admitted only that you were aware that the rifle had been brought by others to your property but claimed not to have seen it, and that others had tried to sell you the other two firearms for drugs or money. A few days later on 17 January 2020, CCTV recordings from your home were seized. Examination of the CCTV, with other evidence, disclosed that over the course of 11 and 12 January all of the firearms were taken to your home by two men you knew. You were interviewed again on 11 March 2020 about the firearms and other matters. You admitted that all three firearms were taken to you, that the two men asked you to try to sell two of them, and that on the day you received them you handed them on to a third man who was going to sell them for you for $500 each. By delivering the firearms to that person for that purpose you trafficked in them. The Ruger rifle and the Sportco Shotgun were recovered from a car he was driving on 3 February 2020 after he tried to evade the police. The shotgun was loaded and he had other ammunition in his pocket. He is a person with a long criminal history including for violence. By possessing those firearms and by conveying them you committed the summary offences to which I have referred.
 
The facts related to the drug trafficking charge commence from the police search conducted on 12 January. The summary charges arise from that same search. You produced two snaplock bags containing a total of 18 grams of methylamphetamine. One bag was in your handbag with a set of scales, and the other was concealed in your clothing. The police also found a smaller snap lock bag containing one gram of Ice, Ice pipes and foil sticks. When you were interviewed you admitted that you were an Ice user, but you had purchased a quantity of the drug on credit for $3000 intending to sell enough of it in point or half a gram quantities to cover your costs, and to use the rest. You were charged and bailed.
 
About two months later, on 11 March 2020, you were a passenger in a car intercepted by the police in Burnie. They found a snap lock bag concealed behind the glove box which contained what was later established to be 50.47 grams of methylamphetamine. In the car you had scales, empty snap lock bags and $3740 in cash. You admitted when interviewed that, following a short break after your earlier arrest, you had been purchasing Ice on credit for sale to sub-dealers in quantities up to an ounce. You admitted that for each of the six weeks or so following the beginning of February 2020 you handled three to four ounces, which is between about 80 and 110 grams, of Ice, and the turnover was between $50,000 and $70,000. You said you were selling to sub-dealers, so the total value of the drug sold to end users would have been much more. The State does not now dispute the contention that the cash you had was yours but not sourced from drug sales.
 
You are aged 38. You had a disadvantaged child hood and were subjected to family breakdown, You have held employment. You did not regularly use illicit drugs until about 10 years ago when you commenced a new relationship. You quickly became a heavy user of amphetamine and methylamphetamine. You have an extensive criminal record which commences when you were 17. Prior to 2015 there are some convictions for violence, dishonesty and anti-social offending, but your record till then was mostly for driving offences. Then in October 2015 you were fined and made subject to a probation order for a series of driving offences, one of which was driving with a drug in your blood. In June 2017 you were sentenced by a magistrate to a short suspended term of imprisonment, and community service for numerous offences committed during 2016 and early 2017. They are mostly driving offences, some of which involve driving with a drug in your blood, but also include selling, possessing and using a controlled drug. In November 2017 you were sentenced to imprisonment for six months, most of which was suspended for two years, and probation, again for offences including driving offences, dishonesty and common assaults committed in 2016 and early 2017. Those sentences did not deter you. You continued to offend and, on 18 March 2019, you were sentenced to imprisonment for a total term of 12 months and four days from 14 December 2018. That sentence was imposed for more offences of dishonesty and drug related driving offences, and included activation of the previously suspended sentence. You have a history of failing to comply with the conditions of community based sentencing orders. On 2 July 2020 you were sentenced by Brett J to imprisonment for 12 months from 19 June 2020 with eligibility for parole after 7 months for a serious assault committed on 29 August 2019. That sentence is relevant to totality but is for different criminal conduct and no reduction in sentence of substance is called for.
 
Attempts have been made to address your addiction. A drug treatment bail order was made in 2018 but failed. You successfully completed the Equips Addiction program while in prison in 2019 but relapsed soon after your release. While you were in custody in 2019 efforts were made to address your ongoing mental health issues with some good results, but again not enough to prevent the crimes you committed not long after your release. Imprisonment will be made more difficult for you because your mother is terminally ill and may die while you are in custody, but such is the price of committing serious crime.
 
Many details of your drug trafficking conduct are based on your admissions to the police. It is in your favour that you have pleaded guilty. By doing so you have facilitated justice at a time when trials are significantly delayed as a result of the pandemic. Your sentence will be reduced as a result. Even so, you admit guilt to serious crimes. Trafficking in firearms is serious because of the strong link between stolen firearms and crimes involving violence and dishonesty. These guns were not registered to you and it was obvious that they had been dishonestly obtained. Stolen firearms almost inevitably end up in the hands of criminals, as they did here. I take into account that you did not initiate the attempted sales and that you acted on the request of others.
 
The same cannot be said about the drug trafficking. It has frequently been said in this court that those who traffic in illicit drugs trade on the misery of others and can expect harsh punishment. Yours is a serious example of drug trafficking. I accept that you were a drug user in the grip of an addiction, probably desperate to obtain your own supply. But that goes nowhere near explaining the nature and scale of this trafficking and the nature of your involvement. Ice is highly addictive and damaging to health. It causes great harm to those who become addicted to it and the people around them. Its use and trade generates a great deal of other criminal activity, especially serious crimes of dishonesty and violence. You have no prior convictions for trafficking but apart from your guilty plea and admissions there is no reason for any lenience. Your criminal conduct continued even after you had been apprehended once for both drug and firearm offences and admitted to bail. By acting in that manner you displayed contempt for the law and for authority. A significant term of imprisonment is the only appropriate sentence. I am to determine a sentence which is a fair and just reflection of your total criminality.
 
I was asked to assess, in accordance with the Crime (Confiscation of Profits) Act 1993, s 22, the value of the benefits derived by you from the commission of the offence in the sum of $50,000 and order that you pay to the State a pecuniary penalty equal to that sum. I decline to make it. I have a discretion to make such an order at all, but if the order is made it must be made in the sum assessed. It is a significant sum. If it is made you will always be indebted under the order unless and until you satisfy it. There is no suggestion that you have in some way saved your ill-gotten gains or converted them into significant assets that could be applied in discharge of such the order. You already owe $7,000 to Centrelink, $1500 to Housing Tasmania and more than $17,000 in outstanding fines. I think that, in the circumstances outlined to me, that there is no realistic prospect that you will ever be able to pay off a penalty in that amount, or any meaningful part of it.
 
 W , you are convicted on each count to which you have pleaded guilty. I order that the two glass smoking devices and the electronic scales seized by police on 12 January 2020 and the electronic scales seized on 11 March 2020 are forfeited to the State. Pursuant to the Misuse of Drugs Act 2001, s 36B, I assess the reasonable expense of and attending the analysis or examination of the controlled substance as $358 and award that sum against you as part of the costs of the prosecutor. You have 28 days from your release to pay that sum. The personal use, possession and smoking device charges on complaint 50681/2020, counts 1, 3 and 4, the summary firearm charges on complaint 50976/2020, counts 4, 5 and 6 and the further use charge which is count 2 on complaint 50974/2020, in light of the other offences I propose to impose, warrant only a conviction without further order. Count 2 on complaint 50681/2020 is subsumed in the indictment. On indictment 269/2020, counts 1 and 2, the firearms charges, I impose one sentence. You are sentenced to imprisonment for three months cumulative to the term that you are currently serving. I order that you not be eligible for parole until you have served half of that term. On indictment 266/2020, trafficking in a controlled substance, you are sentenced to imprisonment for two years and four months, cumulative to the term just imposed. I order that you not be eligible for parole until you have served half of that term. The result is a total term of two years and seven months cumulative to the term that you are currently serving  with eligibility for parole after having served half of the sentences that I have imposed.
 
 
[On 16 October 2020, following imposition of the sentence, Pearce J was informed that the defendant had been in custody between 11 March 2020 and 2 April 2020 and that the period of custody had not been taken into account in any other sentence. As a result, on 19 October 2020, Pearce J corrected the sentence imposed on 16 October 2020 by ordering that 23 days of the three month term imposed on counts 1 and 2 on indictment 269/2020 be served concurrently with the term of imprisonment imposed by Brett J on 2 July 2020 and that the balance be served cumulatively.]

File pic

This was posted 3 hours ago

STATE OF TASMANIA v B 16 OCTOBER 2020 COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE B , you plead guilty to being armed in public. I also agreed to deal with your plea of guilty to summary offences: two counts of threatening a police officer, one count of resisting a police officer and one count of unlawfully possessing a dangerous article. At about 7.30 pm on 1 December 2019 you were seen outside your house in Invermay drinking from a bottle of vodka, with two large knives tucked into the back of your trousers. The police were called. You then began walking away from your home and through Invermay. You were dressed in black. Your behaviour caused alarm to members of the public. About 15 minutes later the police received a series of calls from concerned members of the public complaining that you were walking around near Aurora Stadium, intoxicated and brandishing large knives. You approached a group of three young people consisting of one young man and his two female friends. You told them that you were a police officer suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder and you wanted to kill yourself. The girls ran away but the young man, in an attempt to disarm you, told you that if you gave him the knives he would kill you. You threw two large knives on the ground and produced two other knives which you threw down. You moved towards him, and screamed at him to stab you. By this time the police arrived and the young man walked away. What followed was a bizarre exchange across a gated fence during which you repeatedly demanded that the police give you back your bottle of vodka. You threatened the three police officers who were near you that they would be “fucking dead” unless the bottle was handed over. You produced yet another knife and threatened the police officers with it from the other side of the fence. OC spray was used. After numerous requests you dropped the knife you had been holding. Four police officers unlocked the gate, and approached to handcuff you, but you resisted by pulling your arms away and struggling. Once you were handcuffed, yet another knife was located concealed in a sheath under your clothing. You were taken to the police station where your bizarre behaviour continued. You are aged 45. You are married but separated from your wife in 2017. You have had limited contact with your children since then. You are currently living with your mother in Invermay. It is in your favour that you have pleaded guilty and you have no relevant prior convictions, although a refusal of a restricted licence just before this incident contributed to your agitated state. Your claim to be a police officer was true, although since 2017 you have been suspended from the police force. One of the factors which led to the suspension is difficulties with your psychological health. You have been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder contributed to be a series of incidents you experienced in the police force, most particularly and assault in 2009. A dispute about your entitlements arising from the conditions which are said to be related to your employment has only recently been resolved. It was submitted on your behalf that your culpability for the offences for which you are to be sentenced is reduced by reason of your psychological or psychiatric condition. I was given a report from your general practitioner, Dr Tredinnick. The claim to reduced culpability was not accepted by the prosecution. As a result, I sought a report from the Chief Forensic Psychiatrist who delegated Dr Mike Jordan to prepare it. Dr Jordan’s report is dated 20 August 2020. He had access to your health records, details and camera footage of your offences, Dr Tredinnick’s report, and he interviewed you. His report is detailed and it is not possible or necessary to repeat all of it. He describes the treatment you have sought and received from your general practitioner, psychologist and private psychiatrists, as well as, at one stage, specialist psychiatric treatment in Victoria and treatment following admissions following a number of intentional overdoses, particularly since 2017. He accepts that traumatic incidents you experienced in the police force likely contributed to your PTSD. You also display facets of personality disorder with traits of anti-social, borderline, histrionic and narcissistic personality traits. You exhibit symptoms of hypervigilance and reckless and self-destructive behaviour. These provide context, but the most significant factor which precipitates your behaviour, including these offences, is substance abuse, especially alcohol. When committing these offences, you were highly intoxicated. You claim no memory of your conduct, but Dr Jordan attributes that to your intoxication rather than some dissociative state arising from your mental health. You have sought some treatment for alcohol and drug abuse but you continue to heavily abuse alcohol. Your alcohol dependency and past misuse of illicit drugs is expanded upon by the author of the home detention assessment report. The gravity and extent of your alcohol addiction is such as to make you, in the opinion of the reporting officer, unsuitable for home detention. In my opinion there is an urgent need for your dependency to be seriously addressed, something you have not been able to do in the past despite assistance from the Alcohol and Drug Service. Dr Jordan does not recommend a supervision order. You have already displayed a willingness to seek out treatment for yourself. Both he and Dr Tredinnick suggest that resolution of your employment dispute may improve your mental health status and hopefully that will now occur. However, whether or not that is so, I would sentence you on the basis that your mental health is relevant to sentence by providing a context to your behaviour, but it reduces your culpability only to a very limited extent. Balanced with that is what I see to be a very real need to protect the public from your bizarre and unpredictable behaviour. You display a real interest in dangerous knives. Before going out on this day you armed yourself with, on my count, six knives of various sizes and types. You produced five of them. One remained concealed until you were searched. It is not suggested that you threatened to use the knives against the three young people you confronted, only against yourself, but it must nevertheless have been a highly confronting experience for them. Other members of the public saw you wandering around brandishing knives and were understandably disturbed and frightened by it. You then used a knife to threaten the police. Having viewed the images from the body worn camera I am satisfied that you did not present an immediate threat of physical injury to the police, however that was largely due to their good work in de-escalating the situation. They are to be commended for their patience and restraint. You, more than most, should know the potential consequences of such threats to police and the need to protect them and vindicate their authority. Only the two knives initially seen by the public and the three young persons are the subject of the indictable offence. Another knife was used to threaten the police officers. The remaining knives are the subject of the charge under the Police Offences Act which is, as serious as it may seem, is punishable only by fine. I regard your conduct as so serious as to justify a sentence of imprisonment, to serve as a warning to you and others of the consequences of acting in this way and in that way to protect the public. The task of sentencing you is made more difficult by your unsuitability for home detention. However, I have decided that actual imprisonment is not, at this stage necessary. I will wholly suspend the term I am about to impose as an incentive for you to not re-offend. However you must clearly understand that it will be a condition of that sentence that while it is in force you must not commit any offence punishable by imprisonment. If you breach that condition then the term I am about to impose must be activated unless that is unjust. Any repetition of conduct like this would almost certainly result in prison. B , you are convicted on each count on complaint 35861/19. I order that the two large knives seized from you on 27 February 2020 are forfeited to the State. On count 4 you are fined $250. On the remaining counts I impose one sentence. You are sentenced to imprisonment for four months wholly suspended for 18 months from today See MoreSee Less

STATE OF TASMANIA v B 16 OCTOBER 2020 COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE
 
B , you plead guilty to being armed in public. I also agreed to deal with your plea of guilty to summary offences: two counts of threatening a police officer, one count of resisting a police officer and one count of unlawfully possessing a dangerous article.
 
At about 7.30 pm on 1 December 2019 you were seen outside your house in Invermay drinking from a bottle of vodka, with two large knives tucked into the back of your trousers. The police were called. You then began walking away from your home and through Invermay. You were dressed in black. Your behaviour caused alarm to members of the public. About 15 minutes later the police received a series of calls from concerned members of the public complaining that you were walking around near Aurora Stadium, intoxicated and brandishing large knives. You approached a group of three young people consisting of one young man and his two female friends. You told them that you were a police officer suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder and you wanted to kill yourself. The girls ran away but the young man, in an attempt to disarm you, told you that if you gave him the knives he would kill you. You threw two large knives on the ground and produced two other knives which you threw down. You moved towards him, and screamed at him to stab you. By this time the police arrived and the young man walked away. What followed was a bizarre exchange across a gated fence during which you repeatedly demanded that the police give you back your bottle of vodka. You threatened the three police officers who were near you that they would be “fucking dead” unless the bottle was handed over. You produced yet another knife and threatened the police officers with it from the other side of the fence. OC spray was used. After numerous requests you dropped the knife you had been holding. Four police officers unlocked the gate, and approached to handcuff you, but you resisted by pulling your arms away and struggling. Once you were handcuffed, yet another knife was located concealed in a sheath under your clothing. You were taken to the police station where your bizarre behaviour continued.
 
You are aged 45. You are married but separated from your wife in 2017. You have had limited contact with your children since then. You are currently living with your mother in Invermay. It is in your favour that you have pleaded guilty and you have no relevant prior convictions, although a refusal of a restricted licence just before this incident contributed to your agitated state. Your claim to be a police officer was true, although since 2017 you have been suspended from the police force. One of the factors which led to the suspension is difficulties with your psychological health. You have been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder contributed to be a series of incidents you experienced in the police force, most particularly and assault in 2009. A dispute about your entitlements arising from the conditions which are said to be related to your employment has only recently been resolved. It was submitted on your behalf that your culpability for the offences for which you are to be sentenced is reduced by reason of your psychological or psychiatric condition. I was given a report from your general practitioner, Dr Tredinnick. The claim to reduced culpability was not accepted by the prosecution. As a result, I sought a report from the Chief Forensic Psychiatrist who delegated Dr Mike Jordan to prepare it. Dr Jordan’s report is dated 20 August 2020. He had access to your health records, details and camera footage of your offences, Dr Tredinnick’s report, and he interviewed you. His  report is detailed and it is not possible or necessary to repeat all of it. He describes the treatment you have sought and received from your general practitioner, psychologist and private psychiatrists, as well as, at one stage, specialist psychiatric treatment in Victoria and treatment following admissions following a number of intentional overdoses, particularly since 2017. He accepts that traumatic incidents you experienced in the police force likely contributed to your PTSD. You also display facets of personality disorder with traits of anti-social, borderline, histrionic and narcissistic personality traits. You exhibit symptoms of hypervigilance and reckless and self-destructive behaviour. These provide context, but the most significant factor which precipitates your behaviour, including these offences, is substance abuse, especially alcohol. When committing these offences, you were highly intoxicated. You claim no memory of your conduct, but Dr Jordan attributes that to your intoxication rather than some dissociative state arising from your mental health. You have sought some treatment for alcohol and drug abuse but you continue to heavily abuse alcohol. Your alcohol dependency and past misuse of illicit drugs is expanded upon by the author of the home detention assessment report. The gravity and extent of your alcohol addiction is such as to make you, in the opinion of the reporting officer, unsuitable for home detention. In my opinion there is an urgent need for your dependency to be seriously addressed, something you have not been able to do in the past despite assistance from the Alcohol and Drug Service.
 
Dr Jordan does not recommend a supervision order. You have already displayed a willingness to seek out treatment for yourself. Both he and Dr Tredinnick suggest that resolution of your employment dispute may improve your mental health status and hopefully that will now occur. However, whether or not that is so, I would sentence you on the basis that your mental health is relevant to sentence by providing a context to your behaviour, but it reduces your culpability only to a very limited extent. Balanced with that is what I see to be a very real need to protect the public from your bizarre and unpredictable behaviour. You display a real interest in dangerous knives. Before going out on this day you armed yourself with, on my count, six knives of various sizes and types. You produced five of them. One remained concealed until you were searched. It is not suggested that you threatened to use the knives against the three young people you confronted, only against yourself, but it must nevertheless have been a highly confronting experience for them. Other members of the public saw you wandering around brandishing knives and were understandably disturbed and frightened by it. You then used a knife to threaten the police. Having viewed the images from the body worn camera I am satisfied that you did not present an immediate threat of physical injury to the police, however that was largely due to their good work in de-escalating the situation. They are to be commended for their patience and restraint. You, more than most, should know the potential consequences of such threats to police and the need to protect them and vindicate their authority.
 
Only the two knives initially seen by the public and the three young persons are the subject of the indictable offence. Another knife was used to threaten the police officers. The remaining knives are the subject of the charge under the Police Offences Act which is, as serious as it may seem, is punishable only by fine.
 
I regard your conduct as so serious as to justify a sentence of imprisonment, to serve as a warning to you and others of the consequences of acting in this way and in that way to protect the public. The task of sentencing you is made more difficult by your unsuitability for home detention. However, I have decided that actual imprisonment is not, at this stage necessary. I will wholly suspend the term I am about to impose as an incentive for you to not re-offend. However you must clearly understand that it will be a condition of that sentence that while it is in force you must not commit any offence punishable by imprisonment. If you breach that condition then the term I am about to impose must be activated unless that is unjust. Any repetition of conduct like this would almost certainly result in prison.
 
B , you are convicted on each count on complaint 35861/19. I order that the two large knives seized from you on 27 February 2020 are forfeited to the State. On count 4 you are fined $250. On the remaining counts I impose one sentence. You are sentenced to imprisonment for four months wholly suspended for 18 months from today

This was posted 3 hours ago

A Metro bus has had a window smashed out as it was travelling on Lamprill Circle at Herdsmans Cove a short time ago we are told.File pic See MoreSee Less

A Metro bus has had a window smashed out as it was travelling on Lamprill Circle at Herdsmans Cove a short time ago we are told.

File pic

This was posted 3 hours ago

Update: Cat safely rescued a big shout out to Lauderdale Fire Brigade TFS attended a Terrina Street, Lauderdale location tonight in response to a cat up the tree! 🐈 Two pumpers, a hydraulic platform and a another vehicle attended the scene.File pic of a cat in a tree See MoreSee Less

Update: Cat safely rescued a big shout out to Lauderdale Fire Brigade 

TFS attended a Terrina Street, Lauderdale location tonight in response to a cat up the tree! 🐈 Two pumpers, a hydraulic platform and a another vehicle attended the scene.

File pic of a cat in a tree

This was posted 3 hours ago

STATE OF TASMANIA v L STATE OF TASMANIA v T 16 October 2020 COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCEThe defendants L , aged 32 and T , aged 28, have pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery. At the time of the commission of the crime the defendants were in a relationship. On Friday 12 July 2019 the complainant, X , checked into room 22 at the Martin Cash Motel on Main Road Glenorchy, where he was staying. At around 6pm on Saturday 13 July, the complainant went to the Carlyle Hotel, located across the road from the Martin Cash Motel. He spent time in the gaming room, having a few drinks and playing the poker machines. The defendants were also at the Carlyle Hotel at this time in the gaming room. A short time later the defendant T approached the complainant, started talking to him and stood behind him watching him play the poker machines. The defendant L watched this interaction for a short amount of time before leaving the hotel for about an hour, leaving the defendant T with the complainant in the gaming room. At 9:31pm he returned briefly, but approximately one minute later left via the front doors and waited outside the hotel. At this time the defendant T was still with the complainant in the gaming room. At about 9:33pm she and the complainant left the hotel together via the front door. The defendant T saw the complainant had a room key from the Martin Cash Motel and told the complainant that she was staying there as well. A few seconds later the defendant L came back briefly into the front foyer of the Carlyle Hotel, before walking back out the front doors and walking in the same direction as the complainant and the defendant T had. The complainant and the defendant T walked over the road to the Martin Cash Motel, and the defendant L followed. The complainant opened the door to his room and the defendant T asked whether she could come in for a drink, and the complainant agreed. A few minutes later there was a knock at the door and the complainant went to answer it. The defendant L punched the complainant to the head and ribs, and held him by his jumper beneath his neck, saying “where is the money, where is the money”? The defendant L then pushed the complainant down onto the ground near the end of the bed, and used his left foot to push the complainant down by his stomach. The defendant T then bent down and pulled the complainant’s wallet out of his back right jeans pocket. The wallet contained about $600. She also removed his mobile phone from his front right pocket and his room key from his front left pocket. Both defendants then got off the complainant and left the room, taking his property with them. The defendant L took the complainant’s phone charger out of the wall on the way out, and said “don’t call or go outside or I will kill you”. The complainant was so scared that he locked the door and stayed inside for the rest of the night. The following morning at around 9am the complainant went to reception and called the police. As a result of the incident he sustained a lump on his head and a small cut to his cheek. As a result of the incident he had $600 in cash stolen as well as his mobile phone and phone charger, and a number of cards. None of the property has been recovered. The Crown assert the defendants formed a plan to rob the complainant together in a joint criminal enterprise. Fortunately the complainant’s injuries were relatively minor, however I have had read to me a victim impact statement, and the incident has left him feeling constantly stressed. He has a lot of trouble sleeping and feels scared to go out. He has been caused to feel a lot of fear and anxiety as a result of the incident. The defendant T ’s plea of guilty to the indictment and summary charges came after negotiations between prosecution and defence over the past few months. She has never denied the offending generally. The issues for resolution concerned the particulars and facts upon which she would plead guilty. She is entitled to a discount for the utilitarian benefit of that plea. A perusal of her pre-sentence records, I am told, reveal that she was admitted to the psychiatric unit of the Royal Hobart Hospital in late 2017, and on discharge did not follow-up appointments with her psychiatrist. However, she now wants to pursue mental health and drug and alcohol abuse support. Her criminal history when she lived in northern New South Wales began in 2013. She met the defendant L on her return to Tasmania and although her criminal history in the past 6 years is lengthy, and includes offences of dishonesty and assault, she has no prior convictions for robbery. This is the first time that she has been dealt with in the Supreme Court. She has spent 233 days in custody in respect of this offence, and the defendant L has spent 430 days in custody in respect of the offence. His plea of guilty also came after negotiations with the Crown as to a factual dispute and is entitled to credit for that. He is the eldest of six children in his family and has a long history of substance abuse and offending commencing in the children’s court in Tasmania at the age of 12. He has used a variety of illicit drugs and illicit use of prescription drugs from a very early age. It is clear that he has suffered from mental health conditions from a young age including, I am told, bi-polar disorder and ongoing depression for which he has self-medicated with illicit drugs. This was exacerbated after suffering injuries in a car accident requiring hospitalisation. The defendant L is the biological father of an infant daughter, with the defendant T and has also been a father figure to Ms T ’s son. The children are currently on an 18 year care and protection order, and the defendant L has been proactive in participating in all court proceedings relating to the children, even when in custody. A major motivation for his rehabilitation is his desire to be a decent tole model to his children and to be a reliable and responsible partner in the future to Ms T . At the time of the current offending the defendant L was homeless. He has been using amphetamines on a daily basis, including on the day and evening of the robbery, and at that time was under the influence of methylamphetamine. He has engaged in work with prison counsellors and psychologists to address his long-term drug addiction in respect of his recidivist offending. He has been accessing pharmacotherapy within the prison, and plans further treatment in community rehabilitation with the alcohol and drugs service at St John’s Park and the Salvation Army Bridge Program. Unlike the defendant T , Mr L has a record of prior convictions which is also lengthy. His record, unlike Ms T , involves many convictions for aggravated burglary and one for aggravated armed robbery in 2008 for which he was sentenced to 30 months’ imprisonment. He was currently then serving an immediately effective sentence of two years and 3 months’ imprisonment for offences of aggravated burglar, stealing, motor vehicle stealing and assault. The sentencing judge said at that time that the explanation for the defendant’s criminal conduct was his abuse of alcohol and drugs, and more recently drugs alone. To my mind this is serious case of aggravated robbery in respect of which there are no mitigating factors. I do not accept that there was no element of pre-planning from the time the defendants commenced to observe the complainant at the hotel. There is little to distinguish between them in terms of their criminal culpability, although I note their respective ages, roles and records. Neither of them, of course, are to be punished for their records. I note both were on bail at the time of this offending which is an aggravating circumstance. The Crown seeks a compensation order pursuant to s 68(1) of the Sentencing Act in favour of X in the sum of $600, and I make that order against both defendants. Both defendants are convicted. The defendant T is sentenced to 16 months’ imprisonment, backdated to 25 February 2020, with parole eligibility after serving half of that sentence. The defendant L is sentenced to 20 months’ imprisonment, backed to 14 August 2019, with parole eligibility after serving half of that sentence. On my calculations that makes both defendants immediately eligible for parole. See MoreSee Less

STATE OF TASMANIA v L STATE OF TASMANIA v T 16 October 2020 COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE

The defendants L , aged 32 and T , aged 28, have pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery.  At the time of the commission of the crime the defendants were in a relationship.
 
On Friday 12 July 2019 the complainant, X , checked into room 22 at the Martin Cash Motel on Main Road Glenorchy, where he was staying.
 
At around 6pm on Saturday 13 July, the complainant went to the Carlyle Hotel, located across the road from the Martin Cash Motel. He spent time in the gaming room, having a few drinks and playing the poker machines. The defendants were also at the Carlyle Hotel at this time in the gaming room.
 
A short time later the defendant T  approached the complainant, started talking to him and stood behind him watching him play the poker machines. The defendant L  watched this interaction for a short amount of time before leaving the hotel for about an hour, leaving the defendant T  with the complainant in the gaming room.  At 9:31pm he returned briefly, but approximately one minute later left via the front doors and waited outside the hotel.
 
At this time the defendant T  was still with the complainant in the gaming room. At about 9:33pm she and the complainant left the hotel together via the front door.  The defendant T  saw the complainant had a room key from the Martin Cash Motel and told the complainant that she was staying there as well.
 
A few seconds later the defendant L  came back briefly into the front foyer of the Carlyle Hotel, before walking back out the front doors and walking in the same direction as the complainant and the defendant T  had.
 
The complainant and the defendant T  walked over the road to the Martin Cash Motel, and the defendant L  followed.
 
The complainant opened the door to his room and the defendant T  asked whether she could come in for a drink, and the complainant agreed.
 
A few minutes later there was a knock at the door and the complainant went to answer it. The defendant L  punched the complainant to the head and ribs, and held him by his jumper beneath his neck, saying “where is the money, where is the money”?
 
The defendant L  then pushed the complainant down onto the ground near the end of the bed, and used his left foot to push the complainant down by his stomach.
 
The defendant T  then bent down and pulled the complainant’s wallet out of his back right jeans pocket.  The wallet contained about $600.  She also removed his mobile phone from his front right pocket and his room key from his front left pocket.
 
Both defendants then got off the complainant and left the room, taking his property with them. The defendant L  took the complainant’s phone charger out of the wall on the way out, and said “don’t call or go outside or I will kill you”.
 
The complainant was so scared that he locked the door and stayed inside for the rest of the night.
 
The following morning at around 9am the complainant went to reception and called the police. As a result of the incident he sustained a lump on his head and a small cut to his cheek.
 
As a result of the incident he had $600 in cash stolen as well as his mobile phone and phone charger, and a number of cards. None of the property has been recovered.
 
The Crown assert the defendants formed a plan to rob the complainant together in a joint criminal enterprise.  Fortunately the complainant’s injuries were relatively minor, however I have had read to me a victim impact statement, and the incident has left him feeling constantly stressed.  He has a lot of trouble sleeping and feels scared to go out.  He has been caused to feel a lot of fear and anxiety as a result of the incident.
 
The defendant T ’s plea of guilty to the indictment and summary charges came after negotiations between prosecution and defence over the past few months.  She has never denied the offending generally.  The issues for resolution concerned the particulars and facts upon which she would plead guilty.  She is entitled to a discount for the utilitarian benefit of that plea.
  
A perusal of her pre-sentence records, I am told, reveal that she was admitted to the psychiatric unit of the Royal Hobart Hospital in late 2017, and on discharge did not follow-up appointments with her psychiatrist.  However, she now wants to pursue mental health and drug and alcohol abuse support.
 
Her criminal history when she lived in northern New South Wales began in 2013.  She met the defendant L  on her return to Tasmania and although her criminal history in the past 6 years is lengthy, and includes offences of dishonesty and assault, she has no prior convictions for robbery.  This is the first time that she has been dealt with in the Supreme Court.
 
She has spent 233 days in custody in respect of this offence, and the defendant L  has spent 430 days in custody in respect of the offence.
 
His plea of guilty also came after negotiations with the Crown as to a factual dispute and is entitled to credit for that.
 
He is the eldest of six children in his family and has a long history of substance abuse and offending commencing in the children’s court in Tasmania at the age of 12.  He has used a variety of illicit drugs and illicit use of prescription drugs from a very early age.  It is clear that he has suffered from mental health conditions from a young age including, I am told, bi-polar disorder and ongoing depression for which he has self-medicated with illicit drugs.  This was exacerbated after suffering injuries in a car accident requiring hospitalisation.
 
The defendant L  is the biological father of an infant daughter, with the defendant T  and has also been a father figure to Ms T ’s son.  The children are currently on an 18 year care and protection order, and the defendant L  has been proactive in participating in all court proceedings relating to the children, even when in custody.  A major motivation for his rehabilitation is his desire to be a decent tole model to his children and to be a reliable and responsible partner in the future to Ms T .
 
At the time of the current offending the defendant L  was homeless. He has been using amphetamines on a daily basis, including on the day and evening of the robbery, and at that time was under the influence of methylamphetamine.  He has engaged in work with prison counsellors and psychologists to address his long-term drug addiction in respect of his recidivist offending.  He has been accessing pharmacotherapy within the prison, and plans further treatment in community rehabilitation with the alcohol and drugs service at St John’s Park and the Salvation Army Bridge Program.
 
Unlike the defendant T , Mr L  has a record of prior convictions which is also lengthy.  His record, unlike Ms T , involves many convictions for aggravated burglary and one for aggravated armed robbery in 2008 for which he was sentenced to 30 months’ imprisonment.
 
He was currently then serving an immediately effective sentence of two years and 3 months’ imprisonment for offences of aggravated burglar, stealing, motor vehicle stealing and assault.  The sentencing judge said at that time that the explanation for the defendant’s criminal conduct was his abuse of alcohol and drugs, and more recently drugs alone.
 
To my mind this is serious case of aggravated robbery in respect of which there are no mitigating factors.  I do not accept that there was no element of pre-planning from the time the defendants commenced to observe the complainant at the hotel.  There is little to distinguish between them in terms of their criminal culpability, although I note their respective ages, roles and records.  Neither of them, of course, are to be punished for their records.  I note both were on bail at the time of this offending which is an aggravating circumstance.
 
The Crown seeks a compensation order pursuant to s 68(1) of the Sentencing Act  in favour of X  in the sum of $600, and I make that order against both defendants.
 
Both defendants are convicted.  The defendant T  is sentenced to 16 months’ imprisonment, backdated to 25 February 2020, with parole eligibility after serving half of that sentence.  The defendant L  is sentenced to 20 months’ imprisonment, backed to 14 August 2019, with parole eligibility after serving half of that sentence.
 
On my calculations that makes both defendants immediately eligible for parole.

This was posted 1 day ago

Inbox us 24/7 365 days a year. Murders, Robberies, Shootings, Stabbings, Crashes, Evades, Accidents, Sieges, Incidents, Fires, Crime, Prison incidents, anything you think we should know about! Help us stay number one in breaking crime news, most often up to 48 hours ahead of others. The Vigilante News always protects the privacy and confidentiality of its sources, thats guaranteed! TVN 24/7 every day – We care we never close! See MoreSee Less

Inbox us 24/7 365 days a year. Murders, Robberies, Shootings, Stabbings, Crashes, Evades, Accidents, Sieges, Incidents, Fires, Crime, Prison incidents, anything you think we should know about! Help us stay number one in breaking crime news, most often up to 48 hours ahead of others. The Vigilante News always protects the privacy and confidentiality of its sources, thats guaranteed! TVN 24/7 every day - We care we never close!

This was posted 1 day ago

Ambulance Tasmania are attending a crash at Launceston where a child has been struck by a vehicle. The child has been taken to the LGH with injuries. See MoreSee Less

Ambulance Tasmania are attending a crash at Launceston where a child has been struck by a vehicle. The child has been taken to the LGH with injuries.

This was posted 1 day ago

Mark Shelton, Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Management – New drones helping keep our community safeNew additions to Tasmania Police’s drone fleet are the latest weapons in fighting crime as part of the Tasmanian Government’s commitment to keeping Tasmanians safe. Tasmania Police will now be operating 22 drones across the state available to support Road and Public Order Services, Forensic Services, Search and Rescue and Marine, as well as specialist and tactical units. There are three new types of drones that are specifically designed to have increased flight times, remote area capability, 3D modelling to help with serious crash and crime scenes and the ability to drop objects into remote areas or to people. We currently have 20 remote pilots and are in the process of recruiting 5 more to utilise the drones to assist in policing operations. Last financial year drones were used in 227 operations to support policing activities and investigations, which include successes across the state where offenders in stolen and evading vehicles have been apprehended with drone support. Tasmania Police has also located a number of stolen vehicles in bushland near Launceston by using drones and have deployed drones to assist in searches for missing Tasmanians across the state. The Tasmanian Government is investing $400,000 into the drones program as part of our commitment to providing Tasmania Police with the best technology to keep Tasmanians safe. See MoreSee Less

Mark Shelton, Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Management - New drones helping keep our community safe

New additions to Tasmania Police’s drone fleet are the latest weapons in fighting crime as part of the Tasmanian Government’s commitment to keeping Tasmanians safe.
 
Tasmania Police will now be operating 22 drones across the state available to support Road and Public Order Services, Forensic Services, Search and Rescue and Marine, as well as specialist and tactical units.
 
There are three new types of drones that are specifically designed to have increased flight times, remote area capability, 3D modelling to help with serious crash and crime scenes and the ability to drop objects into remote areas or to people.
 
We currently have 20 remote pilots and are in the process of recruiting 5 more to utilise the drones to assist in policing operations.
 
Last financial year drones were used in 227 operations to support policing activities and investigations, which include successes across the state where offenders in stolen and evading vehicles have been apprehended with drone support.
 
Tasmania Police has also located a number of stolen vehicles in bushland near Launceston by using drones and have deployed drones to assist in searches for missing Tasmanians across the state.
 
The Tasmanian Government is investing $400,000 into the drones program as part of our commitment to providing Tasmania Police with the best technology to keep Tasmanians safe.

This was posted 1 day ago

Police are investigating an alleged incident between people known to each-other near the roundabout at East Derwent Highway and Midland Highway, Bridgewater. An allegation has been received that a firearm was discharged around 1.30pm. See MoreSee Less

Police are investigating an alleged incident between people known to each-other near the roundabout at East Derwent Highway and Midland Highway, Bridgewater. An allegation has been received that a firearm was discharged around 1.30pm.

This was posted 1 day ago

One of our female subscribers was bottled in the face multiple of times in Hobart on Friday night at a waterfront hotel room. Our subscriber is undergoing x-rays/scans checking for fractures. TVN believes all of these bottle or glassing incidents should be made public on every occasion. See MoreSee Less

One of our female subscribers was bottled in the face multiple of times in Hobart on Friday night at a waterfront hotel room. Our subscriber is undergoing x-rays/scans checking for fractures. TVN believes all of these bottle or glassing incidents should be made public on every occasion.

This was posted 1 day ago

Crash at car park Glenorchy council chambers See MoreSee Less

This was posted 1 day ago

NSW restrictions to hopefully ease first week of November.Victoria restrictions currently December but could be earlier.Q’ld, NT, WA, SA and the ACT to reopen next Monday. See MoreSee Less

NSW restrictions to hopefully ease first week of November.

Victoria restrictions currently December but could be earlier.

Q’ld, NT, WA, SA and the ACT to reopen next Monday.

This was posted 2 days ago

At 4.40 pm on Sunday 18 October 2020 Southern Road and Public Order Police identified a black Suzuki GSXR 1000 motor cycle overtaking dangerously at a corner on double white lines on Tea Tree Road into Brighton. The motor cycle was detected travelling at 120 kph in the 60 kph zone. The motor cycle was followed to an address at Brighton at which time a 29 year old Moogara man was arrested and his motor cycle seized for an indefinite period pending application for forfeiture.The rider was subject to a breath analysis and returned a reading of .161, over three times the legal limit.The rider has multiple prior convictions for disqualified driving and convictions under the Road Safety Alcohol and Drugs Act.The male was charged with multiple traffic offences, including: • Dangerous Driving• Drive while disqualified (Vehicle and Traffic Act)• Operate vehicle in public place in an unnecessary execution of speed, acceleration or loss of traction.• Drive a motor vehicle while exceeding prescribed alcohol limit• Being a Person Mentioned in section 6(3) Road Safety ActAnyone who observed the motor cycle in the area or has dash camera footage of the riding behaviour at the time is asked to contact Southern Road and Public Order Services at Bellerive Police Station on 131444. See MoreSee Less

At  4.40 pm on Sunday 18 October 2020 Southern Road and Public Order Police identified a black Suzuki GSXR 1000 motor cycle overtaking dangerously at a corner on double white lines on Tea Tree Road into Brighton.  The motor cycle was detected travelling at 120 kph in the 60 kph zone.  

The motor cycle was followed to an address at Brighton at which time a 29 year old Moogara man was arrested and his motor cycle seized for an indefinite period pending application for forfeiture.

The rider was subject to a breath analysis and returned a reading of .161, over three times the legal limit.

The rider has multiple prior convictions for disqualified driving and convictions under the Road Safety Alcohol and Drugs Act.

The male was charged with multiple traffic offences, including:
 
• Dangerous Driving
• Drive while disqualified (Vehicle and Traffic Act)
• Operate vehicle in public place in an unnecessary execution of speed, acceleration or loss of traction.
• Drive a motor vehicle while exceeding prescribed alcohol limit
• Being a Person Mentioned in section 6(3) Road Safety Act

Anyone who observed the motor cycle in the area or has dash camera footage of the riding behaviour at the time is asked to contact Southern Road and Public Order Services at Bellerive Police Station on 131444.

This was posted 2 days ago

Update 10.30pm Both occupants have been flown to the RHH in serious but stable conditions. TVN Breaking news: York Plains Road, Oatlands Vehicle has reportedly rolled with occupant/s trapped.All emergency services are attending. The Tasmania Police Westpac rescue helicopter has been activated to the scene. See MoreSee Less

Update 10.30pm Both occupants have been flown to the RHH in serious but stable conditions. 

TVN Breaking news: York Plains Road,  Oatlands Vehicle has reportedly rolled with occupant/s trapped.

All emergency services are attending. The Tasmania Police Westpac rescue helicopter has been activated to the scene.
Load Some More Posts!