Health minister sounds alarm over arson attacks after another tobacconist destroyed by fire
About 40 firefighters from Fire and Rescue NSW responded to the blaze which ripped through the Russell Street retail outlet at around 7:00pm on Sunday.
Three residents were evacuated from a nearby unit block as firefighters worked to stop the flames spreading to neighbouring buildings.
In a statement, police said there were no injuries and the fire was being treated as suspicious.
The shop was destroyed.
The incident occurred in the local electorate of NSW Minister for Health Ryan Park.
The Member for Keira said "alleged arsonists" could be responsible for the blaze.
"This is extremely concerning for me both as a local member and as a resident," he said.
The fire comes a month after another tobacconist in Ettalong on the NSW Central Coast was destroyed in an arson attack.
Mr Park said some tobacco shops had been associated with organised crime.
"If we don't get on top of this and we continue to see the proliferation of these stores popping up all over the place, that's bad news for the community and terrible for our local towns," Mr Park said.
The incident came just 24 hours after the NSW government announced tougher laws to crack down on the sale of illicit tobacco and vaping goods.
Under the new legislation, an offence involving the commercial possession of illicit tobacco carries a maximum fine of more than $1.5 million and up to seven years imprisonment.
The changes will also grant health inspectors the authority to close premises found to be in breach of the rules.
Mr Park said the new laws were necessary.
"That's the type of legislation that we are bringing in, that we have to bring in, because we have to get on top of this issue," he said.
Police have urged anyone with information or footage of the incident that might help their investigation to contact Crime Stoppers.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
26 minutes ago
- ABC News
What is a spit hood and why do police and prison guards use them?
Spit hoods have long been controversial in Australia. Some support police and prison guards using them on people in custody to protect themselves from spitting, while others say they're too risky and infringe on the human rights of those forced to wear them. The Northern Territory government announced this week it was reinstating the use of spit hoods in youth detention, eight years after the practice was banned. So how are spit hoods used and what are the laws in other states? What are spit hoods and how do they work? A spit hood is a mesh face covering — sometimes known as a safety hood or anti-spit guard — that police and correctional officers place over a person's head to prevent themselves being spat on. NT Corrections Commissioner Matthew Varley said the latest spit hoods the territory was using contained a cellophane interior to capture spital, and had been "well tested and researched around the world". Matthew Varley says the NT's spit hoods are made of a translucent netting material, with a cellophane interior that blocks spit. ( ABC News ) The non-permeable piece of material near the wearer's mouth makes breathing more difficult. Why are spit hoods controversial? There have been multiple deaths in custody across Australia in incidents associated with spit hoods. Australia's Human Rights Commissioner Lorraine Finlay says spit hoods pose "significant risks of injury and death, and that their use is contrary to human rights". Spit hoods are made of a mesh netting with a cellophane material near the mouth. ( Supplied ) Along with restricted breathing, the NT ombudsman found that intoxicated inmates were at a higher risk of vomiting while wearing a spit hood. A 2017 royal commission into juvenile justice and child protection in the territory recommended spit hoods be outlawed. NT Children's Commissioner Shahleena Musk says the territory is the only jurisdiction that's now going back to using spit hoods on children, which she said was an "incredibly risky" move that defied the advice of international experts. Selena Uibo says the $50 million royal commission found that spit hoods were "not fit for purpose". ( ABC News: Michael Donnelly ) NT Opposition Leader Selena Uibo said while the safety of custodial officers was important, the NT government was "ignoring" expert evidence and "input from those frontline workers directly". Mindy Sotiri, executive director of Justice Reform Initiative, said spit hoods would not make the community safer while causing more harm to children in custody. Mindy Sotiri says reintroducing spit hoods won't fix the NT's crime problem. ( ABC News: Sean Tarek Goodwin ) "We know that reintroducing spit hoods, increasing the ability of staff in children's prisons to use more force … will increase the likelihood of children reoffending when they're released," Dr Sotiri said. "When children are mistreated in places of detention, they come out of prison more disconnected, more traumatised, more likely to return to the behaviours that led them into prison in the first place." Why do police use spit hoods? Recent NT Police data, obtained exclusively by the ABC under Freedom of Information laws, revealed multiple instances of officers being spat on inside watch houses over the past six months. NT Police Association president Nathan Finn said officers had to take blood tests to ensure they hadn't contracted a disease after being spat on. "Any assault on police is abhorrent. It should not be happening," he said. Nathan Finn says spitting assaults on police cause officers "mental anguish". ( ABC News: Dane Hirst ) Speaking about the territory's move to bring back spit hoods in youth custody settings, NT Minister Steve Edgington said they were a tool to protect officers. "When young people come into custody that are spitting, biting their tongue and spitting blood at correctional officers, we want to ensure that our frontline staff are protected," he said. What are spit hood laws in each state? Each state and territory has its own laws about the use of spit hoods. Here's a state-by-state breakdown.
News.com.au
an hour ago
- News.com.au
Annabel Digance launches $2.3m lawsuit against South Australian Premier Peter Malinauskas
Former Labor parliamentarian Annabel Digance has dropped a bombshell $2.3m lawsuit on South Australian Premier Peter Malinauskas, claiming he orchestrated a 'malicious prosecution' against her. The lawsuit, filed with the SA Supreme Court, alleges Mr Malinauskas conspired with the SA Police to prosecute Mrs Digance in order to crush her political future and prevent a parliamentary inquiry she supported on alleged bullying in the Labor Party. The police arrested and charged Mr and Mrs Digance for blackmail in April 2021 for alleged conduct against Mr Malinauskas. The conduct centred on secret recordings between Mr Malinauskas and Mr Digance in February 2020 and Mr and Mrs Digance in March 2020. The blackmail charge was dropped in 2023 after the Digances agreed to refrain from any further contact with Mr Malinauskas. The claim, submitted by Carroll and O'Dea Solicitors, states the arrest and prosecution caused Mrs Digance 'injury, loss, damage and harm'. 'The circumstances giving rise to the causes of action immediately caused the cancellation of Mrs Digance's employment, permanently damaged Mrs Digance's prospects of further employment, required Mrs Digance to incur substantial legal expenses in defending herself against the prosecution and required Mrs Digance to incur medical expenses,' the claim states. The lawsuit is directed against both the premier and the South Australian police. 'The members of SA Police conducting the arrest, the search and seizure, the detention, the first bail decision and pursuing the malicious prosecution knew each action was unnecessary, unjustified, unlawful,' the claim states. Mrs Digance is asking for $2.3m in damages. In separate defence claims, both Mr Malinauskas and the SA Police and Prosecution deny Mrs Digance is entitled to the relief claimed and request the court dismiss her suit and cover costs of the proceedings. Mr Malinauskas' defence statement flatly denies allegations that he 'requested' the police pursue a prosecution or that he was acting to suppress the parliamentary inquiry. 'The first respondent (Malinauskas) admits only that on or about April 9, 2021, he contacted SA Police and told them that if SA Police were of the view that a prosecution of the applicant (Digance) and or her husband was justified, he would co-operate to the extent necessary in that prosecution whenever it was to occur,' the defence claim states. The claim submitted on behalf of the SA Police also rejects Mrs Digance's assertions. 'The investigation undertaken by SAPOL into the blackmail offence was appropriate,' the claim states. The blackmail offence was laid based on information available to SAPOL including the complaint made by the first respondent, the recorded conversations … and other witness and documentary evidence obtained by SAPOL during the course of its investigation. 'The sole purpose for initiating and maintaining the blackmail offence was the proper invocation of the criminal law.' The matter will be heard at the South Australian Supreme Court on Wednesday.
News.com.au
an hour ago
- News.com.au
‘Dangerous and predatory': 62yo followed group of young girls through Bondi for 3 days
A 62-year-old man had a ' clear modus operandi' when he stalked a group of 12-year-old girls for three days after sitting next to them at Westfield Bondi Junction McDonald's, court documents have revealed. Mark Coker, a stranger to the young girls, was sentenced to a community corrections order of 12 months and fined $220 in Waverley Local Court on Tuesday after he was found to have followed the girls through Bondi earlier this year. A community corrections order is a term of imprisonment served in the community. Court documents obtained by revealed how police argued against Coker's bail, which was granted, calling him a 'repeat offender' and labelling his actions 'dangerous and predatory'. 'Police hold extreme concern that the accused will continue to reoffend and target further children,' the documents state. 'The accused committed these acts over a span of three days with a clear modus operandi.' The police facts detailed how on January 24, Coker sat next to the girls as they ate at Bondi Westfield McDonald's and 'giggled along' as they spoke to each other. Court documents state that Coker 'left the dining area and waved at the victims' and yelled out: 'Bye guys'. He then followed the group through Westfield, making the girls 'uncomfortable' with the group quickly rushing down an escalator into a store. On January 25 at 6pm, Coker blocked the girls from walking across a pedestrian crossing with his car at North Bondi. Court documents state Coker yelled out: 'Hey girls. You don't remember me, do you? I'm the guy from McDonald's' before laughing and driving away. Two days later – on January 27 in the afternoon – the girls were swimming at the north end of Bondi Beach when they spotted Coker on the sand. 'From the water, the victims saw the accused start to take off his shirt as though he were going to enter the water,' the documents state. 'The victims were concerned that he would swim towards them, so they went back to the shore and left the beach.' They matter was reported to the police, with the young girls fearing Coker would cause them 'physical harm'. 'The frequency of the interactions made the victims feel that the accused was intentionally following them,' the court documents stated. Following a police investigation, Coker was arrested on January 30. He was taken to Waverley Police Station and charged with four counts of stalking or intimidation and one count of stopping on or near a pedestrian crossing. Magistrate Michael Barko handed down a 12-month community correction order for the stalking charges and a $220 fine for the driving charges. As part of his order, he cannot commit any offence and must comply with any mental health counselling or rehab directed by his case manager.
