Breaking News

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

This was posted 1 day ago

Fatal Two Vehicle Collision – Algona Road, Kingston A 42-year-old male and a two-year-old female from Huntingfield have died following a two-vehicle collision on Algona Road at Kingston, approximately 900 meters south of the Fork-in-the-road roundabout. The crash occurred at approximately 8.40am after a white 1998 Hino bus travelling North being driven by a 68-year-old female from Blackmans Bay collided with a south bound black 2006 Lexus which was being driven by the deceased. “Initial investigations suggest that the bus has applied emergency braking in the north bound lane. Steering input and the camber of the road has caused the bus to rotate clockwise with the front of the bus crossing into the south bound lane where the impact has occurred”. The female in the bus was removed by emergency services personnel and conveyed to the Royal Hobart Hospital by road ambulance with non-life-threatening injuries. She also underwent mandatory testing for drugs and alcohol. As a result of the impact both occupants of the Lexus died at the scene. “Excessive speed, or the use of alcohol or drugs is not suspected as being contributing factors in the collision. Investigations are continuing as to why the impact between the two vehicles has occurred.” said Acting Sergeant Hall. Police, Ambulance Tasmania, and TFS all attended the scene. Algona Road was closed for approximately eight hours whilst Police Forensic and Crash Investigation Services personnel investigated the scene.Anyone who observed the vehicles prior to the collision or who has any dash cam footage is asked to contact Acting Sergeant Adam HALL at Southern Crash Investigation Services on 131444 or by contacting Crime Stoppers. See MoreSee Less

Fatal Two Vehicle Collision – Algona Road, Kingston 
 
A 42-year-old male and a two-year-old female from Huntingfield have died following a two-vehicle collision on Algona Road at Kingston, approximately 900 meters south of the Fork-in-the-road roundabout.
 
The crash occurred at approximately 8.40am after a white 1998 Hino bus travelling North being driven by a 68-year-old female from Blackmans Bay collided with a south bound black 2006 Lexus which was being driven by the deceased. “Initial investigations suggest that the bus has applied emergency braking in the north bound lane. Steering input and the camber of the road has caused the bus to rotate clockwise with the front of the bus crossing into the south bound lane where the impact has occurred”.
 
The female in the bus was removed by emergency services personnel and conveyed to the Royal Hobart Hospital by road ambulance with non-life-threatening injuries. She also underwent mandatory testing for drugs and alcohol.
 
As a result of the impact both occupants of the Lexus died at the scene. “Excessive speed, or the use of alcohol or drugs is not suspected as being contributing factors in the collision. Investigations are continuing as to why the impact between the two vehicles has occurred.” said Acting Sergeant Hall.
 
Police, Ambulance Tasmania, and TFS all attended the scene. Algona Road was closed for approximately eight hours whilst Police Forensic and Crash Investigation Services personnel investigated the scene.
Anyone who observed the vehicles prior to the collision or who has any dash cam footage is asked to contact Acting Sergeant Adam HALL at Southern Crash Investigation Services on 131444 or by contacting Crime Stoppers.

This was posted 1 day ago

Police attended a disturbance/incident at Renfrew Circle, Goodwood a short time ago. See MoreSee Less

Police attended a disturbance/incident at Renfrew Circle, Goodwood a short time ago.

This was posted 1 day ago

An 18-year-old Tasmanian man faced Hobart Magistrates Court today (13 August 2020) after being charged with allegedly accessing child abuse material.The investigation launched after the Australian Federal Police-led (AFP) Australian Centre to Counter Child Exploitation (ACCCE) received information from authorities in the United States in relation to alleged child exploitation offences committed by a Tasmanian resident.The Tasmania Joint Anti-Child Exploitation Team (JACET), comprising members of the AFP and Tasmania Police (TASPOL), executed two simultaneous search warrants in Hobart.The man was later arrested at a third property and multiple electronic devices were seized for further digital forensic analysis.The accused appeared before Hobart Magistrates Court today (13 August 2020) and was granted bail to reappear on 17 September 2020, charged with one count of using a carriage service to access child exploitation material contrary to section 474.22(1)(a)(i) of the Criminal Code (Cth)The maximum penalty for this offence is 10 years’ imprisonment. AFP Detective Sergeant Aaron Hardcastle said that, while people may think accessing or sharing child abuse material is harmless, it is contributing to this vile and growing industry across the globe.“Accessing child abuse material is not victimless. It’s not just a photo or video on the internet. Each frame shows a child having their innocence forcibly taken. In accessing the material, you are complicit in the abuse,” D/Sergeant Hardcastle said.“This investigation shows that the AFP and our partners stand shoulder to shoulder in hunting down people who are involved in using, sharing and creating child abuse material. We are working tirelessly to protect those who do not have the means or mechanism to defend themselves.”Members of the public who have any information about people involved in child abuse and exploitation are urged to call Crime Stoppers on 1800 333 000.You can also make a report online by alerting the Australian Centre to Counter Child Exploitation via the Report Abuse button at www.accce.gov.au/report See MoreSee Less

An 18-year-old Tasmanian man faced Hobart Magistrates Court today (13 August 2020) after being charged with allegedly accessing child abuse material.

The investigation launched after the Australian Federal Police-led (AFP) Australian Centre to Counter Child Exploitation (ACCCE) received information from authorities in the United States in relation to alleged child exploitation offences committed by a Tasmanian resident.

The Tasmania Joint Anti-Child Exploitation Team (JACET), comprising members of the AFP and Tasmania Police (TASPOL), executed two simultaneous search warrants in Hobart.

The man was later arrested at a third property and multiple electronic devices were seized for further digital forensic analysis.

The accused appeared before Hobart Magistrates Court today (13 August 2020) and was granted bail to reappear on 17 September 2020, charged with one count of using a carriage service to access child exploitation material contrary to section 474.22(1)(a)(i) of the Criminal Code (Cth)

The maximum penalty for this offence is 10 years’ imprisonment. 

AFP Detective Sergeant Aaron Hardcastle said that, while people may think accessing or sharing child abuse material is harmless, it is contributing to this vile and growing industry across the globe.

“Accessing child abuse material is not victimless. It’s not just a photo or video on the internet. Each frame shows a child having their innocence forcibly taken. In accessing the material, you are complicit in the abuse,” D/Sergeant Hardcastle said.

“This investigation shows that the AFP and our partners stand shoulder to shoulder in hunting down people who are involved in using, sharing and creating child abuse material. We are working tirelessly to protect those who do not have the means or mechanism to defend themselves.”

Members of the public who have any information about people involved in child abuse and exploitation are urged to call Crime Stoppers on 1800 333 000.

You can also make a report online by alerting the Australian Centre to Counter Child Exploitation via the Report Abuse button at www.accce.gov.au/report

This was posted 1 day ago

All sex crime sentences are published on our website: www.thevigilantenews.com.au/category/sex-crime-sentences See MoreSee Less

All sex crime sentences are published on our website: https://www.thevigilantenews.com.au/category/sex-crime-sentences

This was posted 1 day ago

The NSW Joint Counter Terrorism Team (JCTT) is re-appealing for assistance from the community after new details came to light in the investigation into the 1980 assassination of a Turkish diplomat and his bodyguard in Sydney’s east.Turkish Consul-General Şarık Arıyak, aged 50, and his bodyguard, Engin Sever, aged 28, were shot outside a residence on Portland Street, Dover Heights, about 9.45am on Wednesday 17 December 1980.Mr Arıyak and Mr Sever were leaving the residence in separate vehicles, when they were approached by two unknown men, who fired multiple shots at close range before fleeing the area on a motorcycle.Mr Arıyak died at the scene, and Mr Sever died a short time later at St Vincent’s Hospital.Despite extensive investigations by police at the time and over the years, no one has ever been charged.Following a formal review last year, the NSW JCTT, which comprises the NSW Police Force’s Counter Terrorism and Special Tactics Command, the Australian Federal Police, the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation and the NSW Crime Commission, established Operation Esslemont to re-investigate the murders and is using advancements in investigative techniques and forensic technologies.To assist their initial inquiries, the NSW Government reward for information was increased to $1 million on the 39th anniversary (17 December 2019), which has assisted in providing a number of new lines of inquiry.Acting on these new lines of inquiry, police divers from NSW Police Marine Area Command recently conducted initial searches in Sydney Harbour off Greenwich Point regarding items of interest to the investigation.As investigations continue – both domestically and internationally, NSW JCTT officers are re-appealing to the community for information, which may assist with current lines of inquiry.Investigators are keen to speak with anyone who may have details relating to the persons responsible for, and assisting in; the planning and carrying out of the assassination, and the concealment of items such as the motorcycle, weapon and other items used during the assassination both before and after the offence.NSW Police Counter Terrorism and Special Tactics Commander, Assistant Commissioner Mark Walton, said despite encouraging leads being followed by investigators, the JCTT needs further community assistance."Operation Esslemont investigators have been working meticulously through the original case files and have established new and significant lines of inquiry," Assistant Commissioner Mark Walton said."Since our appeal late last year, we have received incredible interest from the community but given the politically motivated nature of the assassination, we believe there’s still a reluctance to help us."But experience tells us that the passage of time – particularly changes in relationships between people with knowledge of a crime – coupled with a hefty reward can be the key to breaking the wall of silence."With that in mind, I urge anyone who has information that will help the JCTT deliver justice for Mr Arıyak and Mr Sever to come forward now and share what they know with investigators."NSW JCTT investigators remind the community that the $1 million reward remains in place for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the person or persons responsible for Mr Arıyak and Mr Sever’s murders.Anyone with information that may assist Operation Esslemont investigators is urged to contact Crime Stoppers: 1800 333 000 See MoreSee Less

This was posted 1 day ago

Operation targeting illegal activity at Port KemblaThe Australian Border Force (ABF) has carried out a high visibility operation at Port Kembla to detect and disrupt organised criminal activity in the area.Today, 13 August 2020, 25 ABF officers from NSW Maritime Operations, Regional Investigations, the Dog Detector Unit, along with officers from Aviation and Maritime Security conducted a crew and ship search on a vessel docked at the port and associated landside inspections.Operation Wallstone involved ABF officers boarding and searching a vessel and ensuring crew on board met customs and immigration requirements. An ABF Island Class vessel was also deployed within the Port Kembla Maritime Zone to conduct searches and compliance checks on small craft and tug boats.Officers stationed at the port carried out Maritime Security Identification Card checks on drivers entering and leaving the wharf and ensured they were all complying with relevant Commonwealth legislation. The purpose of the activity was to identify suspected illegal activity in relation to customs, Immigration and maritime security laws and regulations and to deter any future illegal activity.ABF Maritime and Detained Goods Superintendent Graeme Campbell said ensuring Australia’s ports are secure is a priority.“The ABF has a strong presence at Australia’s busy seaports. With essential goods arriving at ports daily, officers are committed to keeping the economy moving, while also ensuring our borders remain strong,” Superintendent Campbell said.“This operation highlights the ABF’s dedication to tackle illegal activity and criminal infiltration at the nation’s ports. The ABF is also committed to making sure arriving vessels and their crew adhere to federal legislation, which is essential during a pandemic.” See MoreSee Less

This was posted 1 day ago

Crash at Granton late this afternoon. See MoreSee Less

Crash at Granton late this afternoon.Image attachmentImage attachment

This was posted 2 days ago

Ambulance Tasmania TFS and Police including Forensics and members of the CIB are attending a fatal crash on Algona Road at Kingston. A male and a child have been killed. The bus driver has been taken to the RHH non life threatening injuries. TVN will not be attending the scene. See MoreSee Less

Ambulance Tasmania TFS and Police including Forensics and members of the CIB are attending a fatal crash on Algona Road at Kingston. A male and a child have been killed. The bus driver has been taken to the RHH non life threatening injuries. TVN will not be attending the scene.

This was posted 2 days ago

STATE OF TASMANIA v X 12 AUGUST 2020 COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE X , you plead guilty to aggravated burglary, stealing a firearm, stealing and unlawful trafficking in firearms. I also agreed to deal with your pleas of guilty to the summary charges of possessing ammunition without a licence and possessing a controlled drug. On Thursday 20 February 2020 you spent the day with your friend Dwyer. It was your intention to socialise with him, and in the early afternoon he suggested you drive to Longford. Unknown to you, he was heavily addicted to methylamphetamine, and his intention was to look for things to steal to fund his addiction. He directed you to stop at a particular property. After looking in the letterbox he went in, checked the doors, and entered through the front door. By then you realised he intended dishonesty. After a few minutes he beckoned you inside and you complied. Together you removed a large home-made gun safe from the wall of a room inside. You dragged the safe out of the house and loaded it onto your utility. The safe contained fourteen firearms worth almost $9,000 and a large amount of ammunition of various calibre to the value of about $2,000. There was one .22 semi-automatic pistol. The rest were either rifles or shotguns. One of the rifles was an air rifle. Mr Y also stole a mountain bike worth almost $6,000, a jacket and an iPhone. You were party to the theft of the bicycle but not the other items. Mr Y then drove your car to a place about 20 kilometres away where you dumped the safe and some of the ammunition in a paddock after removing the guns and the rest of the ammunition. You took the bike and one of the shotguns to a home in Hadspen intending that you keep those items. You then went to your home in Prospect where you transferred the rest of the guns to another vehicle which you drove to the home in Newnham where Mr Y was living.Mr Y was identified from CCTV installed in the property. The next day, 21 February, the police executed a search warrant at the Newnham property. You were both there. You were in possession of a trigger lock and two snap lock bags containing a total of 1.03 grams of methylamphetamine. One shotgun, the air rifle and some ammunition were in the garage. Four rifles were still in the car.Following your arrest you were taken into custody. You directed the police to the dumped gun safe and ammunition and to the place in Hadspen from where a shotgun and the mountain bike were found. Another gun was later returned through Mr Dwyer’s parents. In all, ten of the firearms have been recovered. There are four outstanding, a Smith and Wesson .22 semi-automatic pistol, a BSA bolt action 243 rifle, a Bruno .270 rifle and a Lanber 12 gauge shotgun.When interviewed by the police you admitted what you had done. The State accepts that you were not the principal offender. Mr Y instigated the theft. You did not realise his plan until it was well progressed and by then you did not have the fortitude to withdraw. You formed an intention to gain from the theft but only to the extent of the bicycle and firearm left at Hadspen. You did not sell the firearms or participate in the sale. You quickly told the police everything you knew. You trafficked in the firearms only by conveying them from one place to another.You are now aged 29. It is in your favour that you have pleaded guilty and that you admitted to the police what you had done. Your affliction is debilitating and long term and you require treatment in the form of weekly injections. Your record is mostly for driving offences, although in 2013 you were fined for two relatively minor counts of stealing. There are also some drug related convictions; for driving with an illicit drug in 2016, selling possessing and using a controlled drug in 2016, and then possessing methylamphetamine in 2019. You have no other convictions for dishonesty and you have not been the subject of any sentence involving community service or imprisonment. You spent four days in custody following your arrest on 21 February 2020.Stealing firearms and trafficking in firearms are serious crimes. Trafficking in firearms is the most serious in the hierarchy of offences provided for in the Firearms Act. There is a strong link between stolen firearms and crimes involving violence and dishonesty. Stolen firearms are taken beyond the control of the regulatory authorities and almost inevitably end up in the hands of criminals. Although some of the firearms you took were recovered, four, including a semi-automatic pistol, were not. General deterrence is a very strong sentencing factor. Mr Y was sentenced to imprisonment for 15 months, with six months of that term suspended. However, in light of the level of your participation, I accept the submission of your counsel that yours is not a particularly serious example of trafficking. Although you are criminally responsible for the same crimes, I regard your blameworthiness as much less than that of Y. As an alternative to imprisonment I sought a report of your suitability for home detention. However you have been assessed as unsuitable. That is so because you have, for a prolonged period, been using cannabis as a means of controlling the symptoms arising from your medical condition. You express doubt as to whether you may be able to comply with the condition of a home detention order that you not use an illicit drug. A special condition to that effect is routinely imposed. The Sentencing Act does not expressly require such a condition, but it does so impliedly by requiring a condition that you not commit an offence punishable by imprisonment and that you submit to testing for the presence of an illicit drug. The Court does not condone cannabis use but, on the other hand, a sentencing order should not set you up to fail.I have concluded that a wholly suspended sentence, coupled with a condition requiring supervision in the community, is a more suitable sentencing order, even though you must understand it will remain a condition of such an order that you not commit an offence punishable by imprisonment. X , you are convicted on counts 1, 2, 3 and 5 of the indictment and on counts 1, 2 and 3 on complaint 30877/2020. I make a compensation order in favour of the owner of the stolen items whose name will be specified on the formal order, and adjourn the further terms of that order to a date to be fixed. I impose one sentence. You are sentenced to imprisonment for nine months, wholly suspended for two years from today. It is a condition of that order that while it is in force you do not commit any offence punishable by imprisonment. If you breach that condition then a court must order that you serve that term unless it is unjust. I impose a further condition that, during the period the order is in force, you are to be subject to the supervision of a probation officer. The conditions which the law imposes on that order include that you must report to a probation officer at 111-113 Cameron Street, Launceston on or before 5pm on 13 August 2020 and that you must, during the operational period of the order, that is, for two years, comply with the reasonable and lawful directions of a probation officer. I impose special conditions that you must attend educational and other programs, undergo assessment and treatment for alcohol or drug dependency, submit to testing for alcohol or drug use and submit to medical, psychological or psychiatric assessment or treatment as directed by a probation officer. If you breach any of those conditions you may be brought back to court and re-sentenced. See MoreSee Less

This was posted 2 days ago

STATE OF TASMANIA v X 12 AUGUST 2020 COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCEMr X has pleaded guilty to one count of armed robbery and one count of attempted robbery. These pleas were entered in the Magistrates Court at an early opportunity and confirmed in the proceedings before me. At the conclusion of sentencing proceedings on 30 July 2020, I indicated that I would reserve my decision concerning defence counsel’s request that I have Mr X assessed for a drug treatment order. Section 27D of the Sentencing Act provides that a court considering making such an order must order the preparation of a drug treatment order assessment report. For reasons which follow, I have determined that, irrespective of the outcome of such an assessment, it would be inappropriate to make a Drug Treatment order in respect of these crimes and, accordingly, there is no point in ordering such a report. My intention is to proceed to sentence immediately.Mr X , you committed the crimes on 2 July 2020. Earlier that day, you collected a package from the post office, which contained a firearm. The prosecution accepts that the firearm was a replica, which I take to mean an imitation firearm within the meaning of the Firearms Act. I will assume that this means that the weapon was not capable of discharging live ammunition. However, it is inherent in the definition of an imitation firearm, and apparent, in any event, from the use made of it by you, and the reaction of one of your victims when it was used to threaten her, that the weapon had the appearance of and could reasonably be mistaken for a real firearm. I understand that it appeared to be a hand-held pistol.After you collected the firearm, you and an accomplice drove to the CBD in Devonport where you entered a pharmacy and spoke to staff about the location of a nearby bank. You left the pharmacy after doing so, but about 15 minutes later, you returned to it and went inside. Your accomplice waited in the vehicle for you. You then committed the crime of attempted robbery. You followed a 72-year-old woman as she left the pharmacy to walk into the carpark at the back. The woman had limited mobility and was using a walking stick. She was also carrying a handbag. You grabbed the handbag and attempted to snatch it from her grip. However, she resisted you by pulling the handbag back towards her. This physical exchange caused her to fall to the gravel. She suffered minor bruising and abrasions to her body as a result of the assault and the fall. You then ran away. I infer that you returned to the vehicle in which your accomplice was waiting and left the area. Sometime later, at about midday, you and your accomplice returned in the vehicle to the same general vicinity. You got out and walked around the area until you came across the second victim. She was a 63-year-old woman, and was also carrying a handbag. When you were close to her, you aggressively said “Give me your handbag”. You then grabbed the handbag and attempted to snatch it from her, but she also resisted you by tightening her grip on it. You then said “Give me your handbag and you won’t get hurt”. When you said this, you were holding the gun and were pointing it at her stomach. She saw the gun and let go of the bag. You immediately ran off towards the car park, got into the waiting car and your accomplice drove away.Two days later, your accomplice handed himself in to police and implicated you. You were subsequently located and arrested by police in Launceston. When interviewed by police, you denied involvement in the crimes. However, you pleaded guilty to them in court four days later. The value of the property stolen from your second victim is estimated at around $800. Police recovered the mobile phone, which you had discarded out of the window of the moving vehicle, but according to the victim, it was damaged beyond repair.Your counsel initially submitted that your instructions were that your selection of victims was random and spontaneous. I indicated that I was not prepared to accept this assertion, unless it was established on the balance of probabilities, and this would have required the presentation of evidence by you. I was then informed that you had instructed your counsel to withdraw this submission. It is obvious to me that you deliberately targeted persons who were vulnerable and, at least as you perceived, susceptible to intimidation. It is no accident, in my view, that you initially entered the pharmacy and then returned a short time later, obviously with the intention of identifying a victim. I have no doubt the first victim was selected by you because you considered her to be vulnerable because of age and visible infirmity. You followed from the pharmacy and then assaulted her with the intention of stealing her property. Clearly, she was not quite as vulnerable as you had anticipated, and was successful in fighting you off. However, in the process, she fell onto the ground and suffered some injury. The consequences to her could have been far worse. This victim has not provided an impact statement.I suspect that the second victim was chosen more randomly, but this is only because you were undoubtedly acting in haste because of fear that the first victim might have raised the alarm. You probably did not originally intend to commit a second crime, but decided to do so when your first attempt at robbery was unsuccessful. However, you still chose a person who seemed vulnerable because of age. Once again, this victim was initially successful in resisting your assault. However, you then produced the weapon, pointed it at close range at her stomach and expressly threatened her. The only possible conclusion available to her from your threat that she would not get hurt if she gave you her handbag, combined with your aggression and the use of the gun, was that if she did not comply with your demand, she would be hurt, obviously by the use of the weapon. Clearly, you were threatening her with what must have seemed to her to be potentially lethal force in order to overbear her resistance. This seems to be exactly how the victim took your threats. Her impact statement indicates that she was terrified for her safety and has suffered psychological and emotional consequences consistent with such an experience since that time. The consequences described by her are entirely consistent in t he experience of the Court with those often experienced by people subjected to this type of crime. They are consistent with what would reasonably be expected as a result of the use of a gun to directly threaten the victim during the course of a robbery.You are 28 years of age. You have no criminal history in Tasmania, but you have a reasonably extensive criminal record in other States, in particular Queensland, Western Australia and New South Wales. Your record in New South Wales includes some firearm offences, but your criminal history generally does not contain offences of violence. You had a good upbringing and have a strong employment history, which includes specialised experience in the construction of prefabricated components relevant to large engineering works. Your counsel submits that you have used illicit drugs on a recreational basis for some years and this would seem to be consistent with your record. However, earlier this year you developed a serious addiction to methylamphetamine. This has had a major impact on your life. Your counsel asserts that you were using methylamphetamine at a rate demonstrated by a cost of $1,000 to $2,000 per week. You lost your employment and, in order to fund your drug habit, you sold everything you owned. You have lost the support of and connection with your family. Clearly, you committed these crimes to obtain money to purchase drugs. This does not mitigate the serious nature of your offending, but the connection between this intensive drug use and your decision to commit these crimes was relied on by your counsel in his submission concerning a drug treatment order.However, in my view, these crimes are far too serious to make such an order an appropriate sentencing option. I rely generally in this regard on the comments which I expressed in the case of Joseph. While your rehabilitation is an important sentencing consideration, I am satisfied that the predominant sentencing considerations in this case are general deterrence and denunciation of your conduct. These are serious crimes with a number of aggravating factors. I infer from the fact that you obviously arranged to obtain an imitation firearm, went to the relevant area in a vehicle with someone else acting as the driver and waiting to help you effect an escape, and then spent some time around the area for the obvious purpose of conducting surveillance before committing the first crime, that the crimes were premeditated. Further, they were directed, in my view deliberately, against vulnerable victims, and one of the crimes involved the production and direct threat to one of the victims with the firearm. The crimes were committed in the CBD in the middle of a weekday, when members of the public could be expected to be present. I am prepared to accept your early plea of guilty as an indication of some remorse and a willingness to co-operate with the administration of justice. However, the seriousness of the crimes, in my view, demands the imposition of a substantial sentence of imprisonment.X , you are convicted of the crimes to which you have pleaded guilty and sentenced to a global term of three years’ imprisonment, which will be backdated to 2 July 2020. I will provide the Parole Board with the opportunity to support any commitment to rehabilitation demonstrated by you while in prison, by providing for your release from prison on parole at the earliest available opportunity. Accordingly, I order that you not be eligible for release on parole until you have served one half of the sentence. I make a compensation order in favour of K in a sum to be assessed, and I adjourn that assessment sine die. See MoreSee Less

STATE OF TASMANIA v X 12 AUGUST 2020 COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE
Mr X  has pleaded guilty to one count of armed robbery and one count of attempted robbery. These pleas were entered in the Magistrates Court at an early opportunity and confirmed in the proceedings before me. At the conclusion of sentencing proceedings on 30 July 2020, I indicated that I would reserve my decision concerning defence counsel’s request that I have Mr X  assessed for a drug treatment order. Section 27D of the Sentencing Act provides that a court considering making such an order must order the preparation of a drug treatment order assessment report. For reasons which follow, I have determined that, irrespective of the outcome of such an assessment, it would be inappropriate to make a Drug Treatment order in respect of these crimes and, accordingly, there is no point in ordering such a report. My intention is to proceed to sentence immediately.
Mr X , you committed the crimes on 2 July 2020. Earlier that day, you collected a package from the post office, which contained a firearm. The prosecution accepts that the firearm was a replica, which I take to mean an imitation firearm within the meaning of the Firearms Act. I will assume that this means that the weapon was not capable of discharging live ammunition. However, it is inherent in the definition of an imitation firearm, and apparent, in any event, from the use made of it by you, and the reaction of one of your victims when it was used to threaten her, that the weapon had the appearance of and could reasonably be mistaken for a real firearm. I understand that it appeared to be a hand-held pistol.
After you collected the firearm, you and an accomplice drove to the CBD in Devonport where you entered a pharmacy and spoke to staff about the location of a nearby bank. You left the pharmacy after doing so, but about 15 minutes later, you returned to it and went inside. Your accomplice waited in the vehicle for you. You then committed the crime of attempted robbery. You followed a 72-year-old woman as she left the pharmacy to walk into the carpark at the back. The woman had limited mobility and was using a walking stick. She was also carrying a handbag. You grabbed the handbag and attempted to snatch it from her grip. However, she resisted you by pulling the handbag back towards her. This physical exchange caused her to fall to the gravel. She suffered minor bruising and abrasions to her body as a result of the assault and the fall. You then ran away. I infer that you returned to the vehicle in which your accomplice was waiting and left the area. Sometime later, at about midday, you and your accomplice returned in the vehicle to the same general vicinity. You got out and walked around the area until you came across the second victim. She was a 63-year-old woman, and was also carrying a handbag. When you were close to her, you aggressively said “Give me your handbag”. You then grabbed the handbag and attempted to snatch it from her, but she also resisted you by tightening her grip on it. You then said “Give me your handbag and you won’t get hurt”. When you said this, you were holding the gun and were pointing it at her stomach. She saw the gun and let go of the bag. You immediately ran off towards the car park, got into the waiting car and your accomplice drove away.
Two days later, your accomplice handed himself in to police and implicated you. You were subsequently located and arrested by police in Launceston. When interviewed by police, you denied involvement in the crimes. However, you pleaded guilty to them in court four days later. The value of the property stolen from your second victim is estimated at around $800. Police recovered the mobile phone, which you had discarded out of the window of the moving vehicle, but according to the victim, it was damaged beyond repair.
Your counsel initially submitted that your instructions were that your selection of victims was random and spontaneous. I indicated that I was not prepared to accept this assertion, unless it was established on the balance of probabilities, and this would have required the presentation of evidence by you. I was then informed that you had instructed your counsel to withdraw this submission. It is obvious to me that you deliberately targeted persons who were vulnerable and, at least as you perceived, susceptible to intimidation. It is no accident, in my view, that you initially entered the pharmacy and then returned a short time later, obviously with the intention of identifying a victim. I have no doubt the first victim was selected by you because you considered her to be vulnerable because of age and visible infirmity. You followed from the pharmacy and then assaulted her with the intention of stealing her property. Clearly, she was not quite as vulnerable as you had anticipated, and was successful in fighting you off. However, in the process, she fell onto the ground and suffered some injury. The consequences to her could have been far worse. This victim has not provided an impact statement.
I suspect that the second victim was chosen more randomly, but this is only because you were undoubtedly acting in haste because of fear that the first victim might have raised the alarm. You probably did not originally intend to commit a second crime, but decided to do so when your first attempt at robbery was unsuccessful. However, you still chose a person who seemed vulnerable because of age. Once again, this victim was initially successful in resisting your assault. However, you then produced the weapon, pointed it at close range at her stomach and expressly threatened her. The only possible conclusion available to her from your threat that she would not get hurt if she gave you her handbag, combined with your aggression and the use of the gun, was that if she did not comply with your demand, she would be hurt, obviously by the use of the weapon. Clearly, you were threatening her with what must have seemed to her to be potentially lethal force in order to overbear her resistance. This seems to be exactly how the victim took your threats. Her impact statement indicates that she was terrified for her safety and has suffered psychological and emotional consequences consistent with such an experience since that time. The consequences described by her are entirely consistent in t he experience of the Court with those often experienced by people subjected to this type of crime. They are consistent with what would reasonably be expected as a result of the use of a gun to directly threaten the victim during the course of a robbery.
You are 28 years of age. You have no criminal history in Tasmania, but you have a reasonably extensive criminal record in other States, in particular Queensland, Western Australia and New South Wales. Your record in New South Wales includes some firearm offences, but your criminal history generally does not contain offences of violence. You had a good upbringing and have a strong employment history, which includes specialised experience in the construction of prefabricated components relevant to large engineering works. Your counsel submits that you have used illicit drugs on a recreational basis for some years and this would seem to be consistent with your record. However, earlier this year you developed a serious addiction to methylamphetamine. This has had a major impact on your life. Your counsel asserts that you were using methylamphetamine at a rate demonstrated by a cost of $1,000 to $2,000 per week. You lost your employment and, in order to fund your drug habit, you sold everything you owned. You have lost the support of and connection with your family. Clearly, you committed these crimes to obtain money to purchase drugs. This does not mitigate the serious nature of your offending, but the connection between this intensive drug use and your decision to commit these crimes was relied on by your counsel in his submission concerning a drug treatment order.
However, in my view, these crimes are far too serious to make such an order an appropriate sentencing option. I rely generally in this regard on the comments which I expressed in the case of Joseph. While your rehabilitation is an important sentencing consideration, I am satisfied that the predominant sentencing considerations in this case are general deterrence and denunciation of your conduct. These are serious crimes with a number of aggravating factors. I infer from the fact that you obviously arranged to obtain an imitation firearm, went to the relevant area in a vehicle with someone else acting as the driver and waiting to help you effect an escape, and then spent some time around the area for the obvious purpose of conducting surveillance before committing the first crime, that the crimes were premeditated. Further, they were directed, in my view deliberately, against vulnerable victims, and one of the crimes involved the production and direct threat to one of the victims with the firearm. The crimes were committed in the CBD in the middle of a weekday, when members of the public could be expected to be present. I am prepared to accept your early plea of guilty as an indication of some remorse and a willingness to co-operate with the administration of justice. However, the seriousness of the crimes, in my view, demands the imposition of a substantial sentence of imprisonment.
X , you are convicted of the crimes to which you have pleaded guilty and sentenced to a global term of three years’ imprisonment, which will be backdated to 2 July 2020. I will provide the Parole Board with the opportunity to support any commitment to rehabilitation demonstrated by you while in prison, by providing for your release from prison on parole at the earliest available opportunity. Accordingly, I order that you not be eligible for release on parole until you have served one half of the sentence. I make a compensation order in favour of K in a sum to be assessed, and I adjourn that assessment sine die.

This was posted 2 days ago

Michael Ferguson, Minister for State Growth – Supporting new medical cannabis ventureTasmanian Alkaloids’ new medical grade cannabinoids operation will not only benefit patients, but will also assist with our economic recovery and create jobs for Tasmanians.Officially opened today, the new facility at Westbury can extract 90 tonnes of raw material each year. That will make around 9 million bottles of medical cannabis.The Tasmanian Government has supported this expansion into medical cannabis with a $10 million commercial loan to help fund the new state-of-the-art secure facility.This support is aimed at delivering new local jobs as we recover and rebuild a stronger Tasmania, as well as establishing our state as a recognised source of medical-grade pharmaceutical products.We are proud to support the company as it looks to establish itself as the largest fully-commercial and licensed medical grade cannabinoids operation in Australia.Tasmanian Alkaloids is a globally recognised market leader in alkaloid raw material manufacturing, with an operating model based and fully integrated in Tasmania.This new venture is a clever move with the growing demand for medical grade cannabinoids in treating conditions where conventional treatments have failed.Tasmanian Alkaloids now directly employs 140 staff and provides significant supply chain benefits for numerous Tasmanian farms and businesses.Today’s announcement once again reinforces that Tasmania is open for business, and it will further enhance our international reputation for advanced manufacturing.Congratulations to Tasmanian Alkaloids for its medical cannabis project and thank you to the Office of the Coordinator-General for its ongoing efforts in facilitating this important investment for our state. See MoreSee Less

Michael Ferguson, Minister for State Growth - Supporting new medical cannabis venture

Tasmanian Alkaloids’ new medical grade cannabinoids operation will not only benefit patients, but will also assist with our economic recovery and create jobs for Tasmanians.

Officially opened today, the new facility at Westbury can extract 90 tonnes of raw material each year. That will make around 9 million bottles of medical cannabis.

The Tasmanian Government has supported this expansion into medical cannabis with a $10 million commercial loan to help fund the new state-of-the-art secure facility.

This support is aimed at delivering new local jobs as we recover and rebuild a stronger Tasmania, as well as establishing our state as a recognised source of medical-grade pharmaceutical products.

We are proud to support the company as it looks to establish itself as the largest fully-commercial and licensed medical grade cannabinoids operation in Australia.

Tasmanian Alkaloids is a globally recognised market leader in alkaloid raw material manufacturing, with an operating model based and fully integrated in Tasmania.

This new venture is a clever move with the growing demand for medical grade cannabinoids in treating conditions where conventional treatments have failed.

Tasmanian Alkaloids now directly employs 140 staff and provides significant supply chain benefits for numerous Tasmanian farms and businesses.

Today’s announcement once again reinforces that Tasmania is open for business, and it will further enhance our international reputation for advanced manufacturing.

Congratulations to Tasmanian Alkaloids for its medical cannabis project and thank you to the Office of the Coordinator-General for its ongoing efforts in facilitating this important investment for our state.

This was posted 2 days ago

Uniting signs Enforceable UndertakingThe operator of the Uniting aged care homes is back-paying employees more than $3.3 million and has entered into an Enforceable Undertaking with the Fair Work Ombudsman.The Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (NSW), a registered charity which runs more than 70 residential aged care facilities as well as other community services under the Uniting brand in NSW and the ACT, self-reported that it underpaid more than 9000 employees.Uniting identified the underpayments when it conducted a review after receiving complaints from a number of its employees.Many of the affected employees worked as front line carers and as community and disability services workers in NSW and ACT. They were covered by a number of different Enterprise Agreements.The underpayments occurred as a result of errors made by Uniting in providing laundry, uniform and vehicle allowances as well as failing to provide shift workers an extra week of annual leave they were entitled to each year.Uniting is back-paying 9561 workers a total of $3.36 million, which includes interest, for underpayments that occurred between 2013 and 2019. Individual underpayments range from less than $1 to more than $11,000.While Uniting has already back-paid the majority of workers, the Enforceable Undertaking requires the organisation to pay any outstanding amounts to former employees by 15 August 2020, as well as a range of other obligations to ensure future compliance.Fair Work Ombudsman Sandra Parker said that an Enforceable Undertaking was appropriate as the organisation had cooperated with the investigation.“Uniting demonstrated a strong commitment to rectifying all underpayments owed to its workers. The Enforceable Undertaking commits the aged care operator to stringent measures to protect its employees. This includes engaging, at its own cost, an expert auditing firm to conduct an independent assessment of the outcomes of its rectification program and to audit its compliance with workplace laws over the next two years,” Ms Parker said.“This matter serves as a warning to all organisations that if you don’t prioritise workplace compliance, you risk underpaying staff on a large scale and face not only a massive administrative exercise calculating underpayments but the cost of a significant back-payment bill. Any employers who need help meeting their lawful workplace obligations should contact us.”Under the Enforceable Undertaking, Uniting must also fund an independent organisation to operate a Hotline for the next four months that employees can use to make enquiries in relation to their entitlements, underpayments or related employment concerns.Uniting is also required to display public, workplace and online notices detailing its workplace law breaches and apologise to workers. See MoreSee Less

This was posted 2 days ago

Police on Tasmania’s west coast caught three motorists travelling at excessive speeds within a half-hour window yesterday afternoon.Between about 3:30 and 4pm, three men were detected exceeding the 100km/hr speed limit on the Lyell Highway, south of Queenstown.Two men from Hobart were caught travelling 49 and 40 kilometres over the speed limit and were issued with infringement notices and disqualified from driving for four and three months respectively.An Ulverstone man, who was driving despite having a suspended P1 licence was caught speeding by 26km/hr. He will be proceeded against by summons, to appear in court at a later date.“These drivers showed a blatant disregard for other road users,” said Inspector Shane LeFevre.“Tasmania Police is focused on driver behaviour and will be conducting speed checks across the state with ongoing vigilance.”“We are expecting significant rainfall across the state over the next few days and we need everyone to take responsibility for keeping us all safe on our roads.” See MoreSee Less

Police on Tasmania’s west coast caught three motorists travelling at excessive speeds within a half-hour window yesterday afternoon.

Between about 3:30 and 4pm, three men were detected exceeding the 100km/hr speed limit on the Lyell Highway, south of Queenstown.

Two men from Hobart were caught travelling 49 and 40 kilometres over the speed limit and were issued with infringement notices and disqualified from driving for four and three months respectively.

An Ulverstone man, who was driving despite having a suspended P1 licence was caught speeding by 26km/hr. He will be proceeded against by summons, to appear in court at a later date.

“These drivers showed a blatant disregard for other road users,” said Inspector Shane LeFevre.

“Tasmania Police is focused on driver behaviour and will be conducting speed checks across the state with ongoing vigilance.”

“We are expecting significant rainfall across the state over the next few days and we need everyone to take responsibility for keeping us all safe on our roads.”

This was posted 2 days ago

Police have fined a 28-year-old woman for failing to isolate at home after returning to Tasmania from interstate.The woman, who returned to north-west Tasmania from Western Australia on Sunday, was directed to isolate at her residence for 14 days. Police identified the breach during a routine compliance check on Tuesday, finding the woman had visited two retail outlets in Burnie that morning. She has been issued a fine of $774 for this offence. Police continue to actively monitor people who are required to self-isolate at home, with more than 22,000 checks having been conducted since 25 March. See MoreSee Less

This was posted 2 days ago

Two Sydney men accused of laundering tens of millions of dollars for offshore Australian crime figures have been arrested and more than $1 million seized as part of an ongoing joint investigation into a transnational money laundering syndicate.Police will allege the men work for an international money laundering organisation and have been moving illicit drug profits through a Sydney daigou, a surrogate shopping business.The clients of this money laundering organisation allegedly include several high-value targets of Australian law enforcement who are currently based overseas.Police executed search warrants in Sydney on Monday (10 August 2020), arresting a 37-year-old alleged ‘cash-collector’ as he delivered $1 million cash contained in cooler bags to a daigou business in Auburn.A 40-year-old man from Dundas Valley, who is allegedly the Sydney-based coordinator of the overseas money laundering enterprise, was arrested as he left a pub in Ermington.The two men were allegedly identified as part of a long-running joint agency investigation into the money laundering operation, which has involved the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission (ACIC) and the United States Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).New South Wales Police arrested a third man – a 21-year-old Jannali man – who is accused of handing over the bags of cash to the 37-year-old to be ‘laundered’.The 37-year-old Carlingford man and 40-year-old Dundas Valley man have been charged with Dealing in the proceeds of crime – money or property worth $1,000,000 or more, contrary to section 400.3(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth).This offence carries a maximum penalty of 25 years’ imprisonment.Investigations are ongoing into whether the daigou operators were aware that they were allegedly helping to move ‘dirty money’ offshore on behalf of the criminal money laundering organisation.Daigous use cash to legally buy goods in Australia that are sought-after in China, including baby formula, cosmetics and luxury clothing and accessories.They then export the goods for re-sale. If they are sold on behalf of money launderers, the profit from selling the goods would go to a money launderer, who would have already released funds to their offshore criminal clients as per the money laundering arrangement.Police claim money laundering operations often funnel illegitimate funds through the cash-intensive daigous so they can transfer dirty proceeds offshore without using Australian bank accounts, in a bid to avoid the attention of authorities.Police will allege the two Sydney men have funnelled millions of dollars from the sale of drugs through the daigou business on behalf of their criminal clients.AFP Federal Agent Geoff Hyde said money laundering networks help transnational serious organised crime groups access the profits from their Australian crimes by moving the proceeds offshore."Money laundering is a key enabler of organised crime and drug trafficking – and is a serious criminal enterprise in its own right," he said."That ability to move the money offshore enables international drug trafficking organisations to continue the cycle of importing drugs into Australia, selling them and accessing those profits by getting the proceeds of sales offshore."Federal Agent Hyde said while police will allege the heads of the money laundering network and many of their clients are overseas – they should not think they are untouchable by Australian law enforcement agencies."We are working closely with our partners to track their activities and make them accountable to the law. We aim to outsmart them, we will strip them of their dishonest wealth and we will dismantle their criminal networks."State Crime Command’s Organised Crime Squad Commander, Detective Superintendent Martin Fileman said NSW Police would continue to work with their partners to dismantle international criminal networks operating in NSW."Our priority is to keep the people of this state safe from threats both locally and abroad," Det. Supt. Fileman said."Those who attempt to benefit from criminal activity in NSW should know that we are working closely with our partnering agencies to pull apart their operations and put them before the courts."BACKGROUND: Money Laundering NetworksInternational Controller NetworkAn International Controller Network is an organised criminal group which specialises in laundering the proceeds of crime between international jurisdictions. They are professional money laundering networks which have extensive global reach and employ a variety of money laundering methodologies. The networks are hierarchical in nature and consist of a number of defined roles. The roles most commonly consist of a Controller, Coordinator, Collector and Transmitter.At various levels within an International Controller Network, records are kept to enable the Controller to balance transactions, manipulate cash pools and keep track of remittances. Typically the Coordinators and Collectors will keep hand written ledgers or electronic records of transactions. It is common for ledgers to contain lists of token numbers, account numbers, names, dates, receipt numbers and/or amounts of cash. These records can also include coded language and slang terms.ControllerThe Controller is often based in an overseas location and is responsible for directing the activities of the group and being the point of contact for Organised Crime Groups who want to launder money. The Controller’s business model relies heavily on their reputation to be able to guarantee the transmission of value from one jurisdiction to another. The Controller makes a profit by charging a commission for each transaction undertaken by their network, as well as negotiating the currency exchange rate in their favour.CoordinatorThe Coordinator in an International Controller Network is responsible for managing the Collectors and Transmitters. They execute the instructions of the Controller and may be based in Australia or overseas. This role is not always present in an International Controller Network and can be dependent on the size of the group in that particular jurisdiction.CollectorThe Collector in an International Controller Network acts upon the direction of the Controller or Coordinator and collects the proceeds of crime from Organised Crime Groups generally through token based exchanges. They can then provide the money to Transmitters to process, or fill the role of Transmitter themselves and deal with the proceeds of crime.TransmitterTransmitters in an International Controller Network are responsible for getting the proceeds of crime off shore. This is usually achieved through structured depositing into bank accounts, handing the cash to a registered remittance service, handing the cash to an unregistered remittance service or handing the cash to a third party to balance unrelated transactions undertaken through Informal Value Transfer Systems, including those operated by Hawala and other similar service providers.Explainer of money launderingOrganised crime group leaders based overseas, for example in Columbia, sell their drugs through a local distributor in Australia.The drug distributor in Australia needs to launder the proceeds and get the money back to the syndicate heads in Columbia without attracting the attention of authorities.They reach out to a money-launderer, often based in Asia, and negotiate a contract on how much is to be laundered, and how. The money-launderers then nominate a cash collector in Australia.The Australian drug distributors will nominate a money-man to meet the Australian cash collector working on behalf of the overseas money-laundering organisation. The money-man will hand over the cash to be laundered.The money-launderer will have a large supply of cash on hand either in Asia, or in Colombia, and will then release the money to the offshore syndicate, charging a commission.The cash collector in Australia then gets to work turning the illegal drug profits into legitimate cash or goods. This can be done by funnelling money through cash-based businesses such as "daigous" – legal businesses buying goods to send back to China. Daigou translates to "surrogate shopper.”The daigous hire members of the Australian Chinese community to buy large amounts of baby formula, cosmetics, vitamins, designer shoes and handbags from pharmacies, supermarkets and department stores.The goods are then shipped to China and re-sold, with the profits going back to the Asian-based money-launderer. See MoreSee Less

Two Sydney men accused of laundering tens of millions of dollars for offshore Australian crime figures have been arrested and more than $1 million seized as part of an ongoing joint investigation into a transnational money laundering syndicate.

Police will allege the men work for an international money laundering organisation and have been moving illicit drug profits through a Sydney daigou, a surrogate shopping business.

The clients of this money laundering organisation allegedly include several high-value targets of Australian law enforcement who are currently based overseas.

Police executed search warrants in Sydney on Monday (10 August 2020), arresting a 37-year-old alleged cash-collector as he delivered $1 million cash contained in cooler bags to a daigou business in Auburn.

A 40-year-old man from Dundas Valley, who is allegedly the Sydney-based coordinator of the overseas money laundering enterprise, was arrested as he left a pub in Ermington.

The two men were allegedly identified as part of a long-running joint agency investigation into the money laundering operation, which has involved the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission (ACIC) and the United States Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).

New South Wales Police arrested a third man – a 21-year-old Jannali man – who is accused of handing over the bags of cash to the 37-year-old to be laundered.

The 37-year-old Carlingford man and 40-year-old Dundas Valley man have been charged with Dealing in the proceeds of crime - money or property worth $1,000,000 or more, contrary to section 400.3(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth).

This offence carries a maximum penalty of 25 years imprisonment.

Investigations are ongoing into whether the daigou operators were aware that they were allegedly helping to move dirty money offshore on behalf of the criminal money laundering organisation.

Daigous use cash to legally buy goods in Australia that are sought-after in China, including baby formula, cosmetics and luxury clothing and accessories.

They then export the goods for re-sale. If they are sold on behalf of money launderers, the profit from selling the goods would go to a money launderer, who would have already released funds to their offshore criminal clients as per the money laundering arrangement.

Police claim money laundering operations often funnel illegitimate funds through the cash-intensive daigous so they can transfer dirty proceeds offshore without using Australian bank accounts, in a bid to avoid the attention of authorities.

Police will allege the two Sydney men have funnelled millions of dollars from the sale of drugs through the daigou business on behalf of their criminal clients.

AFP Federal Agent Geoff Hyde said money laundering networks help transnational serious organised crime groups access the profits from their Australian crimes by moving the proceeds offshore.

Money laundering is a key enabler of organised crime and drug trafficking – and is a serious criminal enterprise in its own right, he said.

That ability to move the money offshore enables international drug trafficking organisations to continue the cycle of importing drugs into Australia, selling them and accessing those profits by getting the proceeds of sales offshore.

Federal Agent Hyde said while police will allege the heads of the money laundering network and many of their clients are overseas – they should not think they are untouchable by Australian law enforcement agencies.

We are working closely with our partners to track their activities and make them accountable to the law. We aim to outsmart them, we will strip them of their dishonest wealth and we will dismantle their criminal networks.

State Crime Commands Organised Crime Squad Commander, Detective Superintendent Martin Fileman said NSW Police would continue to work with their partners to dismantle international criminal networks operating in NSW.

Our priority is to keep the people of this state safe from threats both locally and abroad, Det. Supt. Fileman said.

Those who attempt to benefit from criminal activity in NSW should know that we are working closely with our partnering agencies to pull apart their operations and put them before the courts.

BACKGROUND: Money Laundering Networks

International Controller Network

An International Controller Network is an organised criminal group which specialises in laundering the proceeds of crime between international jurisdictions. They are professional money laundering networks which have extensive global reach and employ a variety of money laundering methodologies. The networks are hierarchical in nature and consist of a number of defined roles. The roles most commonly consist of a Controller, Coordinator, Collector and Transmitter.

At various levels within an International Controller Network, records are kept to enable the Controller to balance transactions, manipulate cash pools and keep track of remittances. Typically the Coordinators and Collectors will keep hand written ledgers or electronic records of transactions. It is common for ledgers to contain lists of token numbers, account numbers, names, dates, receipt numbers and/or amounts of cash. These records can also include coded language and slang terms.

Controller

The Controller is often based in an overseas location and is responsible for directing the activities of the group and being the point of contact for Organised Crime Groups who want to launder money. The Controllers business model relies heavily on their reputation to be able to guarantee the transmission of value from one jurisdiction to another. The Controller makes a profit by charging a commission for each transaction undertaken by their network, as well as negotiating the currency exchange rate in their favour.

Coordinator

The Coordinator in an International Controller Network is responsible for managing the Collectors and Transmitters. They execute the instructions of the Controller and may be based in Australia or overseas. This role is not always present in an International Controller Network and can be dependent on the size of the group in that particular jurisdiction.

Collector

The Collector in an International Controller Network acts upon the direction of the Controller or Coordinator and collects the proceeds of crime from Organised Crime Groups generally through token based exchanges. They can then provide the money to Transmitters to process, or fill the role of Transmitter themselves and deal with the proceeds of crime.

Transmitter

Transmitters in an International Controller Network are responsible for getting the proceeds of crime off shore. This is usually achieved through structured depositing into bank accounts, handing the cash to a registered remittance service, handing the cash to an unregistered remittance service or handing the cash to a third party to balance unrelated transactions undertaken through Informal Value Transfer Systems, including those operated by Hawala and other similar service providers.

Explainer of money laundering

Organised crime group leaders based overseas, for example in Columbia, sell their drugs through a local distributor in Australia.

The drug distributor in Australia needs to launder the proceeds and get the money back to the syndicate heads in Columbia without attracting the attention of authorities.

They reach out to a money-launderer, often based in Asia, and negotiate a contract on how much is to be laundered, and how. The money-launderers then nominate a cash collector in Australia.

The Australian drug distributors will nominate a money-man to meet the Australian cash collector working on behalf of the overseas money-laundering organisation. The money-man will hand over the cash to be laundered.

The money-launderer will have a large supply of cash on hand either in Asia, or in Colombia, and will then release the money to the offshore syndicate, charging a commission.

The cash collector in Australia then gets to work turning the illegal drug profits into legitimate cash or goods. This can be done by funnelling money through cash-based businesses such as daigous – legal businesses buying goods to send back to China. Daigou translates to surrogate shopper.

The daigous hire members of the Australian Chinese community to buy large amounts of baby formula, cosmetics, vitamins, designer shoes and handbags from pharmacies, supermarkets and department stores.

The goods are then shipped to China and re-sold, with the profits going back to the Asian-based money-launderer.

This was posted 3 days ago

STATE OF TASMANIA v H COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE 10 AUGUST 2020The defendant, H , now 21 years of age, 19 at the time of these events, and residing at has pleaded guilty to one count of causing grievous bodily harm by dangerous driving and a number of associated summary matters, namely, driving a motor vehicle whilst exceeding the prescribed alcohol limit with a reading of 0.108, being a first year driver with alcohol in his body, driving a motor vehicle whilst a prescribed illicit drug was present in his body, the drug being THC, using an unregistered motor vehicle, using a motor vehicle with no premium cover, driving whilst disqualified, using a vehicle in contravention of vehicle standards in relation to tyre tread requirements and using a vehicle in contravention of vehicle standards, in that the brake pedal had metal exposed on the petal surface rather than rubber.At around 7:00pm on Friday 17 August 2018 the defendant, along with two male friends, AH then aged 16 and JC then aged 17, drove a 1997 model green Hyundai Excel two door hatch back from at Geeveston to the area of Southwood Bridge on Southwood Road where they met up with some others who had arrived there in separate vehicles. There the defendant and others consumed alcohol and drove the vehicles around the immediate area.Later in the evening the defendant and his two friends decided to drive to Dover to attend a party at a friend’s place where they had more alcohol. At around 10:00pm they went back to the vehicle to return to At this time JC was seated in the rear left passenger seat, AH was in the front passenger seat and the defendant was driving.As the defendant drove along the Huon Highway from Dover towards Geeveston he drove through a sweeping left hand bend. The speed limit on this bend is 60km/h, but changes part-way through to 80km/h. This is in the vicinity of 6750 Huon Highway. At the time the road was damp and there was light rain falling.The defendant travelled through this bend at excessive speed for the conditions. He lost control of the vehicle and it veered off to the left onto the grass verge of the roadway, while sliding and rotating anti-clockwise.As the vehicle left the roadway it struck a small embankment at the edge of the driveway of 6750 Huon Highway which cause the vehicle to momentarily become airborne across the driveway before landing and hitting some shrubs and trees. The vehicle came to rest on the driver’s side and right area of the roof with the front of the vehicle facing back towards Dover. The rear of the vehicle was embedded into a tree and the rear passenger and boot area had collapsed towards the front of the vehicle.Police and other emergency services attended the scene. Police found JC trapped in the rear of the vehicle. He was cut free from the vehicle and air lifted to hospital in a critical condition. He was later transferred to Victoria for intensive care medical treatment.Police saw a number of empty beer stubbies inside the vehicle along with the strong smell of alcohol.The defendant and another passenger, AH, were found on the front porch of a nearby house.A sample of the defendant’s blood returned a reading of 0.108 grams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood (1106/2019, count 1). THC was also found in his blood (1106/2019, count 3). At the time of driving he was disqualified from driving by a New South Wales court for driving with a mid-range concentration of alcohol (1106/2019, count 1). Consequently, he was not permitted to have any alcohol in his body (1106/2019, count 2). The vehicle he was driving was unregistered, having expired on 20 January 2016 and consequently was also uninsured (1106/2019, counts 4 and 5).The defendant sustained fractures to his left acetabular and left pubic ramus as well as to his right sacral and lumbar regions. Despite being requested to remain at hospital, the defendant self-discharged the following day against medical advice.JC was initially admitted to the Royal Hobart Hospital under the emergency surgical unit. He was assessed as having the following injuries:• Cervical spine: facet fractures C5-6 with dislocation, C7 spinous process fracture, facet fracture with dislocation;• Extensive bilateral pelvic fractures;• Bilateral small pneumothoraces;• Bilateral pulmonary contusions and right lower lobe aspiration;• Free blood in abdomen;• Left humeral shaft fracture;• Comminuted fractures to both scapula.JC underwent surgery in Hobart before being transferred to Melbourne for pelvic and neck surgery. He was then transferred back to the Royal Hobart Hospital and later to St John’s hospital for ongoing rehabilitation. He remains under the care of doctors for his physical rehabilitation, and still requires pain relief medications.AH received some superficial marks and soreness to his left hip but was otherwise uninjured.An officer from Tasmania Police Crash Investigation Services concluded that excessive speed for the conditions combined with defective tyres, an un-roadworthy vehicle and perhaps inexperience on behalf of the driver are all contributing factors to the crash.The vehicle was inspected by a Transport Inspector and found to be in an un-roadworthy condition. Specifically, the front right tyre was found to be devoid of tread, and the rear left tyre was found to be below minimum tread depth. Additionally, the brake and clutch pedals were found to be non-compliant in that the rubber pads had worn away exposing the metal underneath.The defendant was interviewed on 12 May 2019. He initially stated that he was in the vehicle at the time of the crash but was not the driver, although he later conceded that he could have been driving but did not remember.Following the interview he was arrested, charged and admitted to police bail.I have read a Victim Impact Statement prepared by JC. One of the biggest impacts on him after the crash has been that he cannot move freely anymore. Initially the doctors thought he might have been a paraplegic. He had a crushed pelvis and had to have a rod put in one side of his pelvis to the other. This gives him “a lot of grief” and is really painful all day. One of his legs is longer than the other now and this causes a lot of pain. He also had a steel plate put in his neck which means that he cannot move his head very far. The humerus bone in his left arm was snapped and anything over 1kg is too much for me to lift. He was in hospital for a long time and in the rehabilitation ward for 3 months. He has ongoing rehabilitation and takes pain medication. Since the crash, he has panic attacks. Loud noises make him feel scared and jumpy. He saw a psychologist for a while after the crash and was diagnosed with PTSD. His short term memory has also been affected. His memory is not good and he has trouble remembering conversations he has just had with people. His sleeping pattern is terrible. He either cannot sleep or falls into a deep sleep very suddenly.The defendant has two convictions in New South Wales for two separate drink driving matters, both of which occurred on 1 January 2018 within about half an hour of each other. He has two prior convictions for driving whilst disqualified in Tasmania on 23 January 2017 and 15 March 2017. He has conviction for driving without proper control of a vehicle on 18 November 2016 which was dealt was by way of a traffic infringement notice.I have had the benefit of a pre-sentence report. The defendant is eligible for home detention, but not for community service as he has an injury to his knee suffered at work, from which he is still recovering.I convict the defendant on all counts. I impose a single sentence of 18 months home detention. The order is to date from tomorrow and I direct that the defendant report to Community Corrections, at Highfield House, 114 Bathurst Street in the morning of tomorrow, 11 August 2020, for induction onto the order.My order includes all of the core conditions contained in s 42AD(1) of Part 5A of the Sentencing Act 1997, including s 42AD(1)(g) as to electronic monitoring.As to ss 42AD(1)(g) and (h), the following conditions are added to the order:1 you must, during all of the operational period of the order submit to electronic monitoring, including by wearing or carrying an electronic device.2 during the period that you are required to submit to electronic monitoring:a you must not remove, tamper with, damage, disable or interfere with the proper functioning of any electronic device or equipment used for the purpose of electronic monitoring;b you must not allow anyone else to remove, tamper with, damage, disable or interfere with the proper functioning of any electronic device or equipment used for the purpose of electronic monitoring;c you must comply with all reasonable and lawful directions given to you in relation to the electronic monitoring, including in relation to the installation, attachment or operation of a device, or a system, used for the purposes of electronic monitoring by:i a police officer;ii a probation officer or proscribed officer; oriii another person whose functions involve the installation or operation of a device, or a system, used for the purposes of electronic monitoringIn addition, the following special conditions are to be added to the Order:1 you must, during the operational period of the order, remain at [the address specified] at all times unless approved by a probation officer.2 tomorrow morning, you must attend the Community Corrections office at Highfield House for induction onto this order.3 You must, during the operational period of the order, maintain in operating condition an active mobile phone service, provide the contact details to Community Corrections and be accessible for contact through this device at all times.4 You must submit to the supervision of a Community Corrections officer as required by that officer.5 You must not, during the operational period of the order, take any illicit or prohibited substances. Illicit and prohibited substances include:a Any controlled drug as defined by the Misuse of Drugs Act 2001;b Any medication containing an Opiate, Benzodiazepine, Bupropion, Hydrochloride or Pseudoephedrine, unless you provide written evidence from your medical professional that you have been prescribed the relevant medication.6 You must not, during the operational period of the order, consume alcohol, and you must, if directed to do so by a police officer or Community Corrections officer, submit to a breath test, urine test, or other test, for the presence of alcohol.Finally, noting that you have not driven a motor vehicle since the date of the offending, I order that you be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver’s licence for a period of three years, backdated to 17 August 2018. See MoreSee Less

STATE OF TASMANIA v  H COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE 10 AUGUST 2020
The defendant,  H , now 21 years of age, 19 at the time of these events, and residing at has pleaded guilty to one count of causing grievous bodily harm by dangerous driving and a number of associated summary matters, namely, driving a motor vehicle whilst exceeding the prescribed alcohol limit with a reading of 0.108, being a first year driver with alcohol in his body, driving a motor vehicle whilst a prescribed illicit drug was present in his body, the drug being THC, using an unregistered motor vehicle, using a motor vehicle with no premium cover, driving whilst disqualified, using a vehicle in contravention of vehicle standards in relation to tyre tread requirements and using a vehicle in contravention of vehicle standards, in that the brake pedal had metal exposed on the petal surface rather than rubber.
At around 7:00pm on Friday 17 August 2018 the defendant, along with two male friends, AH then aged 16 and JC then aged 17, drove a 1997 model green Hyundai Excel two door hatch back from at Geeveston to the area of Southwood Bridge on Southwood Road where they met up with some others who had arrived there in separate vehicles. There the defendant and others consumed alcohol and drove the vehicles around the immediate area.
Later in the evening the defendant and his two friends decided to drive to Dover to attend a party at a friend’s place where they had more alcohol. At around 10:00pm they went back to the vehicle to return to  At this time JC was seated in the rear left passenger seat, AH was in the front passenger seat and the defendant was driving.
As the defendant drove along the Huon Highway from Dover towards Geeveston he drove through a sweeping left hand bend. The speed limit on this bend is 60km/h, but changes part-way through to 80km/h. This is in the vicinity of 6750 Huon Highway. At the time the road was damp and there was light rain falling.
The defendant travelled through this bend at excessive speed for the conditions. He lost control of the vehicle and it veered off to the left onto the grass verge of the roadway, while sliding and rotating anti-clockwise.
As the vehicle left the roadway it struck a small embankment at the edge of the driveway of 6750 Huon Highway which cause the vehicle to momentarily become airborne across the driveway before landing and hitting some shrubs and trees. The vehicle came to rest on the driver’s side and right area of the roof with the front of the vehicle facing back towards Dover. The rear of the vehicle was embedded into a tree and the rear passenger and boot area had collapsed towards the front of the vehicle.
Police and other emergency services attended the scene. Police found JC trapped in the rear of the vehicle. He was cut free from the vehicle and air lifted to hospital in a critical condition. He was later transferred to Victoria for intensive care medical treatment.
Police saw a number of empty beer stubbies inside the vehicle along with the strong smell of alcohol.
The defendant and another passenger, AH, were found on the front porch of a nearby house.
A sample of the defendant’s blood returned a reading of 0.108 grams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood (1106/2019, count 1). THC was also found in his blood (1106/2019, count 3). At the time of driving he was disqualified from driving by a New South Wales court for driving with a mid-range concentration of alcohol (1106/2019, count 1). Consequently, he was not permitted to have any alcohol in his body (1106/2019, count 2). The vehicle he was driving was unregistered, having expired on 20 January 2016 and consequently was also uninsured (1106/2019, counts 4 and 5).
The defendant sustained fractures to his left acetabular and left pubic ramus as well as to his right sacral and lumbar regions. Despite being requested to remain at hospital, the defendant self-discharged the following day against medical advice.
JC was initially admitted to the Royal Hobart Hospital under the emergency surgical unit. He was assessed as having the following injuries:
• Cervical spine: facet fractures C5-6 with dislocation, C7 spinous process fracture, facet fracture with dislocation;
• Extensive bilateral pelvic fractures;
• Bilateral small pneumothoraces;
• Bilateral pulmonary contusions and right lower lobe aspiration;
• Free blood in abdomen;
• Left humeral shaft fracture;
• Comminuted fractures to both scapula.
JC underwent surgery in Hobart before being transferred to Melbourne for pelvic and neck surgery. He was then transferred back to the Royal Hobart Hospital and later to St John’s hospital for ongoing rehabilitation. He remains under the care of doctors for his physical rehabilitation, and still requires pain relief medications.
AH received some superficial marks and soreness to his left hip but was otherwise uninjured.
An officer from Tasmania Police Crash Investigation Services concluded that excessive speed for the conditions combined with defective tyres, an un-roadworthy vehicle and perhaps inexperience on behalf of the driver are all contributing factors to the crash.
The vehicle was inspected by a Transport Inspector and found to be in an un-roadworthy condition. Specifically, the front right tyre was found to be devoid of tread, and the rear left tyre was found to be below minimum tread depth. Additionally, the brake and clutch pedals were found to be non-compliant in that the rubber pads had worn away exposing the metal underneath.
The defendant was interviewed on 12 May 2019. He initially stated that he was in the vehicle at the time of the crash but was not the driver, although he later conceded that he could have been driving but did not remember.
Following the interview he was arrested, charged and admitted to police bail.
I have read a Victim Impact Statement prepared by JC. One of the biggest impacts on him after the crash has been that he cannot move freely anymore. Initially the doctors thought he might have been a paraplegic. He had a crushed pelvis and had to have a rod put in one side of his pelvis to the other. This gives him “a lot of grief” and is really painful all day. One of his legs is longer than the other now and this causes a lot of pain. He also had a steel plate put in his neck which means that he cannot move his head very far. The humerus bone in his left arm was snapped and anything over 1kg is too much for me to lift. He was in hospital for a long time and in the rehabilitation ward for 3 months. He has ongoing rehabilitation and takes pain medication. Since the crash, he has panic attacks. Loud noises make him feel scared and jumpy. He saw a psychologist for a while after the crash and was diagnosed with PTSD. His short term memory has also been affected. His memory is not good and he has trouble remembering conversations he has just had with people. His sleeping pattern is terrible. He either cannot sleep or falls into a deep sleep very suddenly.
The defendant has two convictions in New South Wales for two separate drink driving matters, both of which occurred on 1 January 2018 within about half an hour of each other. He has two prior convictions for driving whilst disqualified in Tasmania on 23 January 2017 and 15 March 2017. He has conviction for driving without proper control of a vehicle on 18 November 2016 which was dealt was by way of a traffic infringement notice.
I have had the benefit of a pre-sentence report. The defendant is eligible for home detention, but not for community service as he has an injury to his knee suffered at work, from which he is still recovering.
I convict the defendant on all counts. I impose a single sentence of 18 months home detention. The order is to date from tomorrow and I direct that the defendant report to Community Corrections, at Highfield House, 114 Bathurst Street in the morning of tomorrow, 11 August 2020, for induction onto the order.
My order includes all of the core conditions contained in s 42AD(1) of Part 5A of the Sentencing Act 1997, including s 42AD(1)(g) as to electronic monitoring.
As to ss 42AD(1)(g) and (h), the following conditions are added to the order:
1 you must, during all of the operational period of the order submit to electronic monitoring, including by wearing or carrying an electronic device.
2 during the period that you are required to submit to electronic monitoring:
a you must not remove, tamper with, damage, disable or interfere with the proper functioning of any electronic device or equipment used for the purpose of electronic monitoring;
b you must not allow anyone else to remove, tamper with, damage, disable or interfere with the proper functioning of any electronic device or equipment used for the purpose of electronic monitoring;
c you must comply with all reasonable and lawful directions given to you in relation to the electronic monitoring, including in relation to the installation, attachment or operation of a device, or a system, used for the purposes of electronic monitoring by:
i a police officer;
ii a probation officer or proscribed officer; or
iii another person whose functions involve the installation or operation of a device, or a system, used for the purposes of electronic monitoring
In addition, the following special conditions are to be added to the Order:
1 you must, during the operational period of the order, remain at [the address specified] at all times unless approved by a probation officer.
2 tomorrow morning, you must attend the Community Corrections office at Highfield House for induction onto this order.
3 You must, during the operational period of the order, maintain in operating condition an active mobile phone service, provide the contact details to Community Corrections and be accessible for contact through this device at all times.
4 You must submit to the supervision of a Community Corrections officer as required by that officer.
5 You must not, during the operational period of the order, take any illicit or prohibited substances. Illicit and prohibited substances include:
a Any controlled drug as defined by the Misuse of Drugs Act 2001;
b Any medication containing an Opiate, Benzodiazepine, Bupropion, Hydrochloride or Pseudoephedrine, unless you provide written evidence from your medical professional that you have been prescribed the relevant medication.
6 You must not, during the operational period of the order, consume alcohol, and you must, if directed to do so by a police officer or Community Corrections officer, submit to a breath test, urine test, or other test, for the presence of alcohol.
Finally, noting that you have not driven a motor vehicle since the date of the offending, I order that you be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver’s licence for a period of three years, backdated to 17 August 2018.

This was posted 3 days ago

STATE OF TASMANIA v B 10 AUGUST 2020 COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCEThe defendant, Mr B , has pleaded guilty to one count of assaulting a police officer, contrary to s 114(1) of the Criminal Code. The charge arises out of events on 8 November 2019. At about 11.50am, police officers in a marked vehicle saw the defendant in the driver’s seat of a red motor vehicle, parked in a driveway in a suburban area. The defendant was accompanied by a youth. It is common ground that the vehicle had been reported as stolen earlier that day, and also that it seems the defendant had recently been involved in that and other offending. After the police drove past, the defendant drove away and police followed. Due to the manner in which the vehicle was being driven, authority was given for the use of road spikes. Another police unit waited to deploy those spikes at the intersection of the East Derwent Highway and the Bowen Bridge. When approaching that point, the defendant was driving in the right hand lane of dual lanes, travelling at an estimated speed of 60 to 70 km/h. Constable Mehdi Mohammadi deployed the spikes in the right lane, and retreated to the left lane near a marked bicycle lane. He was wearing a police uniform which included a high visibility vest. In an apparent attempt to avoid the road spikes, the defendant swerved into the left lane which put his path directly towards the officer. The tyres were spiked but the vehicle did not slow appreciably , and continued towards the officer who tried to run away. The vehicle struck the officer to the left side of his lower body. He collided heavily with the bonnet, and went over the roof of the car before he fell to the ground, striking both his head and body. Const Mohammadi sustained abrasions to his left forearm, left lower leg and hip, as well as bruising, swelling and general aches and pains. He was hospitalised and treated for concussion due to his head injuries. The defendant continued driving the vehicle along the East Derwent Highway towards Risdon Vale. Police followed with lights and sirens activated. By this time, the vehicle had slowed to about 40 to 50 km/h and was travelling on flat tyres. Police continued to follow. The defendant’s vehicle slowed to about 20 km/h but he did not stop until there was a collision with another vehicle at a roundabout, some three kilometres away from where the road spikes had been deployed. The defendant was apprehended and later interviewed. In that interview, he made admissions. He said he was aware police were trying to intercept him, and he wanted to get away. He saw the officer in the middle of the road and slowed to 20 km/h. He tried to avoid the officer. He said he was shocked and scared by what he had done and claimed it was an accident. The Crown does not accept that the defendant tried to avoid hitting the officer or slowed to 20 km/h although it is conceded the defendant may have briefly braked to avoid the road spikes. The defendant does not raise a dispute in relation to this position. The Crown accepts that the defendant did not intend to strike the officer, but was reckless as to the likelihood of that occurring. Const Mohammadi continues to suffer pain in his neck, shoulder, back and knee as a result of the incident. He has experienced a significant psychological impact. He is receiving ongoing medical support and treatment, including seeing a psychologist and a physiotherapist. I have a lengthy victim impact statement dated 13 July 2020. In short summary, immediately after the incident he says was shocked and shaken; he could not tell how bad the injuries were and he was still trying to accept what happened. He has attended multiple medical appointments for consultations, scans and the like. His psychological treatment has addressed developing depression and feelings of uselessness. He eventually went back to work after a couple of months but had to manage with pain medication and consultations to assist with his mental health. More recently he had to seek advice from an orthopaedic surgeon about his knee injury and there is a possibility of surgery. He is still feeling the effects of the incident, both physically and mentally. He says he has suffered a great deal simply as he was doing his job. He feels the assault has caused him a long lasting effect, and he is not sure if he will fully recover. For completeness, I note the Crown does not suggest the officer has suffered serious bodily harm within the meaning of s 16A of the Sentencing Act.The defendant is now 28 years old. He has a lengthy record starting as a youth in September 2007. As an adult he has a bad record for offences of dishonesty, and an appalling record for driving offences, including 19 convictions for driving whilst disqualified. That charge is not before me, but he was disqualified at the time of this offence. That is relevant as context, as is the fact that he was trying to avoid apprehension because of his recent conduct. Of particular significance are convictions in June 2010 for two assaults on police officers by use of a vehicle arising out of the one incident. He then faced a total of 18 charges arising from two episodes, including dangerous driving, driving whilst disqualified, and offences of dishonesty. After an appeal by him, he was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 18 months. Of particular relevance is that the assaults effectively involved precisely the same scenario. One officer was assaulted when the defendant, on being pursued and encountering a road block, drove at a car in which the officer was sitting. The second assault occurred when the defendant drove at an officer who was deploying road spikes. That officer managed to get out of the way. The assault was by driving at him. The defendant was paroled in respect of that sentence but breached several times. On several subsequent occasions he was sentenced to terms of imprisonment, some of which were partly or wholly suspended. Most recently, in July 2019, on traffic and dishonesty offences, he was sentenced to four months’ imprisonment, the execution of which was wholly suspended for 12 months. He was made the subject of a community corrections order and disqualified for 18 months. Accordingly, he was the subject of the conditions of suspension at the time of this offence, which is relevant although no application to activate the sentence has been made to me. The defendant has an unfortunate background. His family unit fractured when he was quite young. His parents separated, his mother leaving the country with the defendant’s half-sister, leaving the father to care for him and his younger brother. The father struggled. The defendant was exposed to substance abuse and violence from a young age. He was expelled from school and then evicted from the home. He started to offend and took up with criminal associates. He engaged in substance abuse and developed an addiction to drugs including methylamphetamine and morphine. Since the age of 18, he has spent much more time in custody than free. In April 2018 he was sentenced to a partially suspended term of imprisonment which was backdated. From then there was a period of about 14 months during which he established a positive relationship with a woman and was relatively drug-free and felt he was turning his life around. However, he was still facing charges, and in June 2019 his bail was revoked. Those court matters seem to be the ones concluded in July 2019. Having reconnected with his antisocial associates in prison, he again started to use drugs heavily when he was free. The defendant had been living with his partner at her parents’ home but he was asked to leave. At the time of this offence he was homeless and using drugs. He has been the subject of a number of community corrections orders with conditions to address his drug use, but he has not been able to overcome the problem.As to the relevant considerations, first it must be said that general deterrence and denunciation are the primary considerations. Assaults on police officers who are acting in the execution of their duty and for the protection of the public, often exposing themselves to risk of injury as in this case, have to be condemned. Although the application of force was reckless and not intentional, the defendant attempted to avoid the road spikes which involved driving at or in the direction of the officer. The basis of the accepted plea means the defendant adverted to the risk of impact but proceeded regardless. There was a high degree of recklessness, and a high risk of serious injury. It is fortunate that Const Mohammadi was not more seriously injured. I have already outlined the effects on him; those effects are ongoing. I have already noted that the defendant was seeking to avoid apprehension because of recent conduct, and that he should not have been driving in the first place. Specific deterrence is also a prominent factor given the previous involvement in precisely the same type of behaviour. At the same time, I take into account the plea of guilty. This was not entered at an early stage in the proceedings but some time was taken to resolve the issue of intention. It has saved the officer and other officers from giving evidence, and there is generally a utilitarian value. That value is perhaps higher than ordinarily it might be because a jury would have had to determine, by inference, the defendant’s state of mind. In addition to the plea, I am told that the defendant is genuinely remorseful. I was told of tearful expressions made during the interview relating to remorse and concern for the officer’s wellbeing. I accept that on reflection, the defendant regretted his conduct. I accept that the relevant conduct occurred in a very short time span, and that the assault was not premeditated in any sense; it was a “split second” decision made in an attempt to avoid the road spikes, involving some, but no great, moderation of speed. I was told that the defendant was in complete shock after he had hit the officer. In the rear vision mirror, he saw him stand up and could see no obvious sign of injury, and the passenger yelled at him to drive off so that they could get away. It was put that the defendant accepted he would be arrested and slowed the vehicle, although I note the tyres were then spiked, which would have impeded progress, and that he drove some distance before involuntarily stopping. I take into account the lack of recorded convictions for violence since the similar matters in 2010. The defendant does not seem to be typically violent and obstructive, although the overall record shows a high level of persistent criminality in the forms I have mentioned. The defendant has been in custody since 8 November 2019. I accept, as suggested by counsel, that the prison environment is presently more onerous than usual in terms of more limited visitor contact and program availability.Mr B , I have outlined what I see to be the relevant factors in your case. This is a grave matter. You thought of the risk of hitting the officer but took the chance he would get out of the way. Were the impact to have been intentional, the sentence would have been markedly higher. But even as it is, it calls for a significant penalty. That is particularly so in your case given your involvement in an almost identical scenario, for which, along with quite a number of associated offences, you spent a long time in gaol. That is now some time ago but the similarity of conduct suggests a current need to attempt to dissuade you from repetition. Your plea of guilty entitles you to a discount. The period during which you were relatively drug free and with limited offending shows that you are not beyond rehabilitation, and your expressed remorse in the interview supports that. For that reason I will provide parole eligibility. You are convicted and sentenced to 20 months’ imprisonment to commence on 8 November 2019. I order that you not be eligible for parole until you have served 12 months of that sentence. You will be disqualified from driving for a period of 18 months. That period will be cumulative to any current periods of disqualification. See MoreSee Less

STATE OF TASMANIA v B 10 AUGUST 2020 COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE
The defendant, Mr B , has pleaded guilty to one count of assaulting a police officer, contrary to s 114(1) of the Criminal Code. The charge arises out of events on 8 November 2019. At about 11.50am, police officers in a marked vehicle saw the defendant in the driver’s seat of a red motor vehicle, parked in a driveway in a suburban area. The defendant was accompanied by a youth. It is common ground that the vehicle had been reported as stolen earlier that day, and also that it seems the defendant had recently been involved in that and other offending. After the police drove past, the defendant drove away and police followed. Due to the manner in which the vehicle was being driven, authority was given for the use of road spikes. Another police unit waited to deploy those spikes at the intersection of the East Derwent Highway and the Bowen Bridge. When approaching that point, the defendant was driving in the right hand lane of dual lanes, travelling at an estimated speed of 60 to 70 km/h. Constable Mehdi Mohammadi deployed the spikes in the right lane, and retreated to the left lane near a marked bicycle lane. He was wearing a police uniform which included a high visibility vest. In an apparent attempt to avoid the road spikes, the defendant swerved into the left lane which put his path directly towards the officer. The tyres were spiked but the vehicle did not slow appreciably , and continued towards the officer who tried to run away. The vehicle struck the officer to the left side of his lower body. He collided heavily with the bonnet, and went over the roof of the car before he fell to the ground, striking both his head and body. Const Mohammadi sustained abrasions to his left forearm, left lower leg and hip, as well as bruising, swelling and general aches and pains. He was hospitalised and treated for concussion due to his head injuries. The defendant continued driving the vehicle along the East Derwent Highway towards Risdon Vale. Police followed with lights and sirens activated. By this time, the vehicle had slowed to about 40 to 50 km/h and was travelling on flat tyres. Police continued to follow. The defendant’s vehicle slowed to about 20 km/h but he did not stop until there was a collision with another vehicle at a roundabout, some three kilometres away from where the road spikes had been deployed. The defendant was apprehended and later interviewed. In that interview, he made admissions. He said he was aware police were trying to intercept him, and he wanted to get away. He saw the officer in the middle of the road and slowed to 20 km/h. He tried to avoid the officer. He said he was shocked and scared by what he had done and claimed it was an accident. The Crown does not accept that the defendant tried to avoid hitting the officer or slowed to 20 km/h although it is conceded the defendant may have briefly braked to avoid the road spikes. The defendant does not raise a dispute in relation to this position. The Crown accepts that the defendant did not intend to strike the officer, but was reckless as to the likelihood of that occurring. Const Mohammadi continues to suffer pain in his neck, shoulder, back and knee as a result of the incident. He has experienced a significant psychological impact. He is receiving ongoing medical support and treatment, including seeing a psychologist and a physiotherapist. I have a lengthy victim impact statement dated 13 July 2020. In short summary, immediately after the incident he says was shocked and shaken; he could not tell how bad the injuries were and he was still trying to accept what happened. He has attended multiple medical appointments for consultations, scans and the like. His psychological treatment has addressed developing depression and feelings of uselessness. He eventually went back to work after a couple of months but had to manage with pain medication and consultations to assist with his mental health. More recently he had to seek advice from an orthopaedic surgeon about his knee injury and there is a possibility of surgery. He is still feeling the effects of the incident, both physically and mentally. He says he has suffered a great deal simply as he was doing his job. He feels the assault has caused him a long lasting effect, and he is not sure if he will fully recover. For completeness, I note the Crown does not suggest the officer has suffered serious bodily harm within the meaning of s 16A of the Sentencing Act.
The defendant is now 28 years old. He has a lengthy record starting as a youth in September 2007. As an adult he has a bad record for offences of dishonesty, and an appalling record for driving offences, including 19 convictions for driving whilst disqualified. That charge is not before me, but he was disqualified at the time of this offence. That is relevant as context, as is the fact that he was trying to avoid apprehension because of his recent conduct. Of particular significance are convictions in June 2010 for two assaults on police officers by use of a vehicle arising out of the one incident. He then faced a total of 18 charges arising from two episodes, including dangerous driving, driving whilst disqualified, and offences of dishonesty. After an appeal by him, he was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 18 months. Of particular relevance is that the assaults effectively involved precisely the same scenario. One officer was assaulted when the defendant, on being pursued and encountering a road block, drove at a car in which the officer was sitting. The second assault occurred when the defendant drove at an officer who was deploying road spikes. That officer managed to get out of the way. The assault was by driving at him. The defendant was paroled in respect of that sentence but breached several times. On several subsequent occasions he was sentenced to terms of imprisonment, some of which were partly or wholly suspended. Most recently, in July 2019, on traffic and dishonesty offences, he was sentenced to four months’ imprisonment, the execution of which was wholly suspended for 12 months. He was made the subject of a community corrections order and disqualified for 18 months. Accordingly, he was the subject of the conditions of suspension at the time of this offence, which is relevant although no application to activate the sentence has been made to me. The defendant has an unfortunate background. His family unit fractured when he was quite young. His parents separated, his mother leaving the country with the defendant’s half-sister, leaving the father to care for him and his younger brother. The father struggled. The defendant was exposed to substance abuse and violence from a young age. He was expelled from school and then evicted from the home. He started to offend and took up with criminal associates. He engaged in substance abuse and developed an addiction to drugs including methylamphetamine and morphine. Since the age of 18, he has spent much more time in custody than free. In April 2018 he was sentenced to a partially suspended term of imprisonment which was backdated. From then there was a period of about 14 months during which he established a positive relationship with a woman and was relatively drug-free and felt he was turning his life around. However, he was still facing charges, and in June 2019 his bail was revoked. Those court matters seem to be the ones concluded in July 2019. Having reconnected with his antisocial associates in prison, he again started to use drugs heavily when he was free. The defendant had been living with his partner at her parents’ home but he was asked to leave. At the time of this offence he was homeless and using drugs. He has been the subject of a number of community corrections orders with conditions to address his drug use, but he has not been able to overcome the problem.
As to the relevant considerations, first it must be said that general deterrence and denunciation are the primary considerations. Assaults on police officers who are acting in the execution of their duty and for the protection of the public, often exposing themselves to risk of injury as in this case, have to be condemned. Although the application of force was reckless and not intentional, the defendant attempted to avoid the road spikes which involved driving at or in the direction of the officer. The basis of the accepted plea means the defendant adverted to the risk of impact but proceeded regardless. There was a high degree of recklessness, and a high risk of serious injury. It is fortunate that Const Mohammadi was not more seriously injured. I have already outlined the effects on him; those effects are ongoing. I have already noted that the defendant was seeking to avoid apprehension because of recent conduct, and that he should not have been driving in the first place. Specific deterrence is also a prominent factor given the previous involvement in precisely the same type of behaviour. At the same time, I take into account the plea of guilty. This was not entered at an early stage in the proceedings but some time was taken to resolve the issue of intention. It has saved the officer and other officers from giving evidence, and there is generally a utilitarian value. That value is perhaps higher than ordinarily it might be because a jury would have had to determine, by inference, the defendant’s state of mind. In addition to the plea, I am told that the defendant is genuinely remorseful. I was told of tearful expressions made during the interview relating to remorse and concern for the officer’s wellbeing. I accept that on reflection, the defendant regretted his conduct. I accept that the relevant conduct occurred in a very short time span, and that the assault was not premeditated in any sense; it was a “split second” decision made in an attempt to avoid the road spikes, involving some, but no great, moderation of speed. I was told that the defendant was in complete shock after he had hit the officer. In the rear vision mirror, he saw him stand up and could see no obvious sign of injury, and the passenger yelled at him to drive off so that they could get away. It was put that the defendant accepted he would be arrested and slowed the vehicle, although I note the tyres were then spiked, which would have impeded progress, and that he drove some distance before involuntarily stopping. I take into account the lack of recorded convictions for violence since the similar matters in 2010. The defendant does not seem to be typically violent and obstructive, although the overall record shows a high level of persistent criminality in the forms I have mentioned. The defendant has been in custody since 8 November 2019. I accept, as suggested by counsel, that the prison environment is presently more onerous than usual in terms of more limited visitor contact and program availability.
Mr B , I have outlined what I see to be the relevant factors in your case. This is a grave matter. You thought of the risk of hitting the officer but took the chance he would get out of the way. Were the impact to have been intentional, the sentence would have been markedly higher. But even as it is, it calls for a significant penalty. That is particularly so in your case given your involvement in an almost identical scenario, for which, along with quite a number of associated offences, you spent a long time in gaol. That is now some time ago but the similarity of conduct suggests a current need to attempt to dissuade you from repetition. Your plea of guilty entitles you to a discount. The period during which you were relatively drug free and with limited offending shows that you are not beyond rehabilitation, and your expressed remorse in the interview supports that. For that reason I will provide parole eligibility. You are convicted and sentenced to 20 months’ imprisonment to commence on 8 November 2019. I order that you not be eligible for parole until you have served 12 months of that sentence.  You will be disqualified from driving for a period of 18 months.  That period will be cumulative to any current periods of disqualification.

This was posted 3 days ago

TFS are attending a Fire Incident at Mary’s Hope Road, Rosetta. See MoreSee Less

TFS are attending a Fire Incident at Mary’s Hope Road, Rosetta.

This was posted 3 days ago

The Tasmania Police Westpac rescue helicopter has been activated to a medivac on Bruny Island. See MoreSee Less

The Tasmania Police Westpac rescue helicopter has been activated to a medivac on Bruny Island.

This was posted 3 days ago

TVN was provided with a copy of a leaked internal email earlier this afternoon that confirmed a new Coronavirus case. The Government has since issued the following media statement:Dr Mark Veitch, Director of Public Health, Public Health ServicesTasmania has confirmed one new case of coronavirus today. This brings the State’s total to 228 cases. The case is a man aged in his 60s. He has recently returned from Victoria where he was receiving medical care and was already admitted to the North West Regional Hospital under appropriate infection control protocols. Public Health Services and the Tasmanian Health Service are conducting contact tracing. Further information will be provided tomorrow. Any Tasmanian with cold or flu-like symptoms such as a cough, sore throat, runny nose, or fever should contact their GP or call the Public Health Hotline on 1800 671 738 to arrange testing for coronavirus. The situation with coronavirus is changing frequently. People can stay up to date by visiting the coronavirus website www.coronavirus.tas.gov.au or the Australian Government Department of Health website at www.health.gov.au. See MoreSee Less

TVN was provided with a copy of a leaked internal email earlier this afternoon that confirmed a new Coronavirus case. The Government has since issued the following media statement:

Dr Mark Veitch, Director of Public Health, Public Health Services

Tasmania has confirmed one new case of coronavirus today.
 
This brings the State’s total to 228 cases.
 
The case is a man aged in his 60s. He has recently returned from Victoria where he was receiving medical care and was already admitted to the North West Regional Hospital under appropriate infection control protocols.
 
Public Health Services and the Tasmanian Health Service are conducting contact tracing.
 
Further information will be provided tomorrow. 
 
Any Tasmanian with cold or flu-like symptoms such as a cough, sore throat, runny nose, or fever should contact their GP or call the Public Health Hotline on 1800 671 738 to arrange testing for coronavirus.
 
The situation with coronavirus is changing frequently. People can stay up to date by visiting the coronavirus website www.coronavirus.tas.gov.au or the Australian Government Department of Health website at www.health.gov.au.

This was posted 3 days ago

Results of the 2020 Legislative Council elections – Distribution of preferences for Rosevears has been completed this afternoon, and Huon is nearing completion.HuonWith one exclusion remaining, Bastian Seidel (48.05%) leads Robert Armstrong (26.54%). The exclusion of Dean Harris is underway, following which, Bastian Seidel will be elected as the Member for the division of Huon.RosevearsJo Palmer (11,492 votes) has been elected as the Member for the division of Rosevears ahead of Janie Finlay (11,232 votes). See MoreSee Less

This was posted 3 days ago

Further to our report yesterday afternoon Tasmania Police have issued the following statement in relation to the incident:Two men have been charged and a trafficable quantity of methylamphetamine (ICE) and firearms has been seized from a Hadspen residence following a search yesterday.In early August 2020 police conducting routine screening of mail into Tasmania located a concealment of trafficable amount of methylamphetamine (ICE) destined for an address in Hadspen.Officers from Northern Drug Investigation Services and Launceston CIB yesterday conducted a search of a Hadspen address. During the search detectives located methylamphetamine, firearms and ammunition. Two men were arrested at the scene and taken to Launceston Police Station for questioning.A 26-year-old Hadspen man was later charged with trafficking in a controlled substance, firearms offences and breaching a Police Family Violence Order. He was detained to appear in the Launceston Magistrates Court today. A 28-year-old Kings Meadows man was charged with trafficking in a controlled substance and firearms offences and was bailed to appear in the Launceston Magistrates Court at a later date.The seizure is one of many by the Tasmania Police Drug Detection Dog ‘PD Fang’ which includes another significant seizure of 112 grams of methylamphetamine in late May 2020 resulting in a 44 year old Invermay woman being charged with trafficking in a controlled substance, unlawfully importing a controlled substance, use a controlled drug, possess a controlled drug.On 6 August 2020 police seized 7 firearms and 7000 rounds of ammunition from an address in Newnham. A 64 year old Newnham man has been charged on summons with drug offences, possession of stolen firearms and failing to comply with relevant firearms storage offences. See MoreSee Less

Further to our report yesterday afternoon Tasmania Police have issued the following statement in relation to the incident:

Two men have been charged and a trafficable quantity of methylamphetamine (ICE) and firearms has been seized from a Hadspen residence following a search yesterday.

In early August 2020 police conducting routine screening of mail into Tasmania located a concealment of trafficable amount of methylamphetamine (ICE) destined for an address in Hadspen.

Officers from Northern Drug Investigation Services and Launceston CIB yesterday conducted a search of a Hadspen address. During the search detectives located methylamphetamine, firearms and ammunition. Two men were arrested at the scene and taken to Launceston Police Station for questioning.

A 26-year-old Hadspen man was later charged with trafficking in a controlled substance, firearms offences and breaching a Police Family Violence Order. He was detained to appear in the Launceston Magistrates Court today. A 28-year-old Kings Meadows man was charged with trafficking in a controlled substance and firearms offences and was bailed to appear in the Launceston Magistrates Court at a later date.

The seizure is one of many by the Tasmania Police Drug Detection Dog ‘PD Fang’ which includes another significant seizure of 112 grams of methylamphetamine in late May 2020 resulting in a 44 year old Invermay woman being charged with trafficking in a controlled substance, unlawfully importing a controlled substance, use a controlled drug, possess a controlled drug.

On 6 August 2020 police seized 7 firearms and 7000 rounds of ammunition from an address in Newnham. A 64 year old Newnham man has been charged on summons with drug offences, possession of stolen firearms and failing to comply with relevant firearms storage offences.
Load Some More Posts!