Fallen ex-AFL star allegedly held at gunpoint in ‘terrifying hostage drama' over car deal
The former North Melbourne player, who lost his footy career over multiple off-field incidents involving women, was with a friend in Ballarat when the incident took place.
FOX FOOTY, available on Kayo Sports, is the only place to watch every match of every round in the 2025 Toyota AFL Premiership Season LIVE in 4K, with no ad-breaks during play. New to Kayo? Get your first month for just $1. Limited-time offer.
Nine News' Isabel Quinlan reported Thomas and his mate met with a group of men around 9pm at a pub on a Saturday night.
'They've stayed there for about an hour, and as they were driving to another location, that's when things took a turn,' Quinlan reported.
'Nine News understands that Tarryn told police that two men held him and his friend at gunpoint, demanding that they sign over the papers to their car and hand over thousands of dollars.
'After allegedly being held hostage for several hours, it's understood Tarryn and his friend have eventually cut a deal and convinced these men to drop them off at a property where they have managed to call police.
'Now, police were investigating this incident for several days, but Tarryn Thomas retracted his statement.
'We have reached out to his lawyer, who has not responded to our request for comment. Tarryn has since deleted his Instagram account and it is understood that the car has been found and returned.'
Thomas was axed by the Kangaroos in February 2024 over repeated conduct breaches and was suspended for 18 games by the AFL.
A charge regarding the harassment of a former partner was heard in court before being dropped and Thomas eventually pleaded guilty to breaching a court order, but avoided a criminal conviction. He was given a 12-month good behaviour bond under the conditions he remain offence free for the next year and continue to engage with the medical practitioners.
After Thomas' November 2024 court case, the AFL declared he must 'consistently demonstrate a change of behaviour for any application on his behalf to even be considered' for approval to return to the top level.
He is permitted to play state-league football this year but could not find a home after being considered by teams in both the VFL and WAFL.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Advertiser
10 hours ago
- The Advertiser
Lehrmann called 'national joke' on return to lion's den
Bruce Lehrmann has challenged damning findings from a landmark defamation case, arguing not all rape is violent as his tattered reputation takes another beating. The former federal political staffer is appealing his loss to Network Ten and journalist Lisa Wilkinson, whom he sued over an interview they conducted with his former colleague Brittany Higgins on The Project in 2021. In his ruling on the defamation case in April 2024, Federal Court Justice Michael Lee found Ms Higgins' claims she had been raped by Lehrmann in parliament house in 2019 were proven on the balance of probabilities. In his headline-grabbing decision, the judge quipped: "Having escaped the lions' den, Mr Lehrmann made the mistake of going back for his hat" in reference to his doomed defamation bid. Lehrmann's lawyer Zali Burrows told the appeal court on Wednesday Justice Lee's ruling, on the heels of an abandoned criminal trial, meant Lehrmann has become probably "the most damaged man in Australia". Media attention, aggravated by commentary from Channel Ten and Wilkinson, led to a flood of hateful social media comments aimed at Lehrmann, she said. "He's pretty much become a national joke," Ms Burrows told the court. She argued Lehrmann, 30, was denied procedural fairness because the facts found by Justice Lee were "starkly different" from the case run by Ten. The ex-Liberal staffer had been "taken by surprise" the judge had adopted a "softer" sequence of events that had not been put to Lehrmann in cross-examination, Ms Burrows said. She claimed Lehrmann had been accused of committing a violent rape but Justice Lee had found it was a "non-violent rape", prompting Justice Craig Colvin to say he wasn't sure he understood that concept. Ten's barrister Matt Collins KC contended the judge had found Ms Higgins' rape was violent, and indeed: "All rape is violent". Lehrmann argued the judge was not satisfied about a number of the violent elements argued by Ten, including he had held open Ms Higgins' legs. "The sting of the (defamatory) imputation resides in the act of intercourse without consent, not in any detail of it," Dr Collins said. He rejected Lehrmann's suggestions he should be awarded damages of more than $20,000 if successful on appeal. Lehrmann raped Ms Higgins when he knew she was seriously intoxicated, continued raping her when she became aware, and left her in a state of undress, Dr Collins said. "That is not a man with any reputation in respect of sexual morality that would warrant compensation," he said. He took issue with Justice Lee's finding Lehrmann had been reckless as to whether Ms Higgins was consenting and urged the appeal court to instead find he knew she did not consent. Ms Wilkinson's lawyer agreed Lehrmann's "level of indifference" could not be inadvertent and instead amounted to a definition of "intentional rape" as understood by an ordinary person. "A young man who knows that a woman is very drunk knows that she cannot consent," Sue Chrysanthou SC said. "This is not a legal question, this is a question that is considered on the standards of the community." Lehrmann not only knew Ms Higgins was very intoxicated but encouraged her to drink, she said. Both lawyers argued Lehrmann had been confronted with the main facts of the case as found by Justice Lee: that sex took place, Ms Higgins did not consent and Lehrmann had been reckless as to her consent. Lehrmann maintains he did not sexually assault Ms Higgins and a 2022 criminal case against him was abandoned without any findings against him. Earlier in the day, Ms Burrows apologised Lehrmann was not represented by a silk, telling the panel of judges he "really wanted" Guy Reynolds SC but "couldn't afford" to engage him. The defamation case and related appeal are among a host of court actions spawned by Ms Higgins' allegation of sexual assault. The Western Australian Supreme Court will next Wednesday rule on former Liberal senator Linda Reynolds' high-profile defamation case against Ms Higgins, her former employee. 1800 RESPECT (1800 737 732) National Sexual Abuse and Redress Support Service 1800 211 028 Bruce Lehrmann has challenged damning findings from a landmark defamation case, arguing not all rape is violent as his tattered reputation takes another beating. The former federal political staffer is appealing his loss to Network Ten and journalist Lisa Wilkinson, whom he sued over an interview they conducted with his former colleague Brittany Higgins on The Project in 2021. In his ruling on the defamation case in April 2024, Federal Court Justice Michael Lee found Ms Higgins' claims she had been raped by Lehrmann in parliament house in 2019 were proven on the balance of probabilities. In his headline-grabbing decision, the judge quipped: "Having escaped the lions' den, Mr Lehrmann made the mistake of going back for his hat" in reference to his doomed defamation bid. Lehrmann's lawyer Zali Burrows told the appeal court on Wednesday Justice Lee's ruling, on the heels of an abandoned criminal trial, meant Lehrmann has become probably "the most damaged man in Australia". Media attention, aggravated by commentary from Channel Ten and Wilkinson, led to a flood of hateful social media comments aimed at Lehrmann, she said. "He's pretty much become a national joke," Ms Burrows told the court. She argued Lehrmann, 30, was denied procedural fairness because the facts found by Justice Lee were "starkly different" from the case run by Ten. The ex-Liberal staffer had been "taken by surprise" the judge had adopted a "softer" sequence of events that had not been put to Lehrmann in cross-examination, Ms Burrows said. She claimed Lehrmann had been accused of committing a violent rape but Justice Lee had found it was a "non-violent rape", prompting Justice Craig Colvin to say he wasn't sure he understood that concept. Ten's barrister Matt Collins KC contended the judge had found Ms Higgins' rape was violent, and indeed: "All rape is violent". Lehrmann argued the judge was not satisfied about a number of the violent elements argued by Ten, including he had held open Ms Higgins' legs. "The sting of the (defamatory) imputation resides in the act of intercourse without consent, not in any detail of it," Dr Collins said. He rejected Lehrmann's suggestions he should be awarded damages of more than $20,000 if successful on appeal. Lehrmann raped Ms Higgins when he knew she was seriously intoxicated, continued raping her when she became aware, and left her in a state of undress, Dr Collins said. "That is not a man with any reputation in respect of sexual morality that would warrant compensation," he said. He took issue with Justice Lee's finding Lehrmann had been reckless as to whether Ms Higgins was consenting and urged the appeal court to instead find he knew she did not consent. Ms Wilkinson's lawyer agreed Lehrmann's "level of indifference" could not be inadvertent and instead amounted to a definition of "intentional rape" as understood by an ordinary person. "A young man who knows that a woman is very drunk knows that she cannot consent," Sue Chrysanthou SC said. "This is not a legal question, this is a question that is considered on the standards of the community." Lehrmann not only knew Ms Higgins was very intoxicated but encouraged her to drink, she said. Both lawyers argued Lehrmann had been confronted with the main facts of the case as found by Justice Lee: that sex took place, Ms Higgins did not consent and Lehrmann had been reckless as to her consent. Lehrmann maintains he did not sexually assault Ms Higgins and a 2022 criminal case against him was abandoned without any findings against him. Earlier in the day, Ms Burrows apologised Lehrmann was not represented by a silk, telling the panel of judges he "really wanted" Guy Reynolds SC but "couldn't afford" to engage him. The defamation case and related appeal are among a host of court actions spawned by Ms Higgins' allegation of sexual assault. The Western Australian Supreme Court will next Wednesday rule on former Liberal senator Linda Reynolds' high-profile defamation case against Ms Higgins, her former employee. 1800 RESPECT (1800 737 732) National Sexual Abuse and Redress Support Service 1800 211 028 Bruce Lehrmann has challenged damning findings from a landmark defamation case, arguing not all rape is violent as his tattered reputation takes another beating. The former federal political staffer is appealing his loss to Network Ten and journalist Lisa Wilkinson, whom he sued over an interview they conducted with his former colleague Brittany Higgins on The Project in 2021. In his ruling on the defamation case in April 2024, Federal Court Justice Michael Lee found Ms Higgins' claims she had been raped by Lehrmann in parliament house in 2019 were proven on the balance of probabilities. In his headline-grabbing decision, the judge quipped: "Having escaped the lions' den, Mr Lehrmann made the mistake of going back for his hat" in reference to his doomed defamation bid. Lehrmann's lawyer Zali Burrows told the appeal court on Wednesday Justice Lee's ruling, on the heels of an abandoned criminal trial, meant Lehrmann has become probably "the most damaged man in Australia". Media attention, aggravated by commentary from Channel Ten and Wilkinson, led to a flood of hateful social media comments aimed at Lehrmann, she said. "He's pretty much become a national joke," Ms Burrows told the court. She argued Lehrmann, 30, was denied procedural fairness because the facts found by Justice Lee were "starkly different" from the case run by Ten. The ex-Liberal staffer had been "taken by surprise" the judge had adopted a "softer" sequence of events that had not been put to Lehrmann in cross-examination, Ms Burrows said. She claimed Lehrmann had been accused of committing a violent rape but Justice Lee had found it was a "non-violent rape", prompting Justice Craig Colvin to say he wasn't sure he understood that concept. Ten's barrister Matt Collins KC contended the judge had found Ms Higgins' rape was violent, and indeed: "All rape is violent". Lehrmann argued the judge was not satisfied about a number of the violent elements argued by Ten, including he had held open Ms Higgins' legs. "The sting of the (defamatory) imputation resides in the act of intercourse without consent, not in any detail of it," Dr Collins said. He rejected Lehrmann's suggestions he should be awarded damages of more than $20,000 if successful on appeal. Lehrmann raped Ms Higgins when he knew she was seriously intoxicated, continued raping her when she became aware, and left her in a state of undress, Dr Collins said. "That is not a man with any reputation in respect of sexual morality that would warrant compensation," he said. He took issue with Justice Lee's finding Lehrmann had been reckless as to whether Ms Higgins was consenting and urged the appeal court to instead find he knew she did not consent. Ms Wilkinson's lawyer agreed Lehrmann's "level of indifference" could not be inadvertent and instead amounted to a definition of "intentional rape" as understood by an ordinary person. "A young man who knows that a woman is very drunk knows that she cannot consent," Sue Chrysanthou SC said. "This is not a legal question, this is a question that is considered on the standards of the community." Lehrmann not only knew Ms Higgins was very intoxicated but encouraged her to drink, she said. Both lawyers argued Lehrmann had been confronted with the main facts of the case as found by Justice Lee: that sex took place, Ms Higgins did not consent and Lehrmann had been reckless as to her consent. Lehrmann maintains he did not sexually assault Ms Higgins and a 2022 criminal case against him was abandoned without any findings against him. Earlier in the day, Ms Burrows apologised Lehrmann was not represented by a silk, telling the panel of judges he "really wanted" Guy Reynolds SC but "couldn't afford" to engage him. The defamation case and related appeal are among a host of court actions spawned by Ms Higgins' allegation of sexual assault. The Western Australian Supreme Court will next Wednesday rule on former Liberal senator Linda Reynolds' high-profile defamation case against Ms Higgins, her former employee. 1800 RESPECT (1800 737 732) National Sexual Abuse and Redress Support Service 1800 211 028 Bruce Lehrmann has challenged damning findings from a landmark defamation case, arguing not all rape is violent as his tattered reputation takes another beating. The former federal political staffer is appealing his loss to Network Ten and journalist Lisa Wilkinson, whom he sued over an interview they conducted with his former colleague Brittany Higgins on The Project in 2021. In his ruling on the defamation case in April 2024, Federal Court Justice Michael Lee found Ms Higgins' claims she had been raped by Lehrmann in parliament house in 2019 were proven on the balance of probabilities. In his headline-grabbing decision, the judge quipped: "Having escaped the lions' den, Mr Lehrmann made the mistake of going back for his hat" in reference to his doomed defamation bid. Lehrmann's lawyer Zali Burrows told the appeal court on Wednesday Justice Lee's ruling, on the heels of an abandoned criminal trial, meant Lehrmann has become probably "the most damaged man in Australia". Media attention, aggravated by commentary from Channel Ten and Wilkinson, led to a flood of hateful social media comments aimed at Lehrmann, she said. "He's pretty much become a national joke," Ms Burrows told the court. She argued Lehrmann, 30, was denied procedural fairness because the facts found by Justice Lee were "starkly different" from the case run by Ten. The ex-Liberal staffer had been "taken by surprise" the judge had adopted a "softer" sequence of events that had not been put to Lehrmann in cross-examination, Ms Burrows said. She claimed Lehrmann had been accused of committing a violent rape but Justice Lee had found it was a "non-violent rape", prompting Justice Craig Colvin to say he wasn't sure he understood that concept. Ten's barrister Matt Collins KC contended the judge had found Ms Higgins' rape was violent, and indeed: "All rape is violent". Lehrmann argued the judge was not satisfied about a number of the violent elements argued by Ten, including he had held open Ms Higgins' legs. "The sting of the (defamatory) imputation resides in the act of intercourse without consent, not in any detail of it," Dr Collins said. He rejected Lehrmann's suggestions he should be awarded damages of more than $20,000 if successful on appeal. Lehrmann raped Ms Higgins when he knew she was seriously intoxicated, continued raping her when she became aware, and left her in a state of undress, Dr Collins said. "That is not a man with any reputation in respect of sexual morality that would warrant compensation," he said. He took issue with Justice Lee's finding Lehrmann had been reckless as to whether Ms Higgins was consenting and urged the appeal court to instead find he knew she did not consent. Ms Wilkinson's lawyer agreed Lehrmann's "level of indifference" could not be inadvertent and instead amounted to a definition of "intentional rape" as understood by an ordinary person. "A young man who knows that a woman is very drunk knows that she cannot consent," Sue Chrysanthou SC said. "This is not a legal question, this is a question that is considered on the standards of the community." Lehrmann not only knew Ms Higgins was very intoxicated but encouraged her to drink, she said. Both lawyers argued Lehrmann had been confronted with the main facts of the case as found by Justice Lee: that sex took place, Ms Higgins did not consent and Lehrmann had been reckless as to her consent. Lehrmann maintains he did not sexually assault Ms Higgins and a 2022 criminal case against him was abandoned without any findings against him. Earlier in the day, Ms Burrows apologised Lehrmann was not represented by a silk, telling the panel of judges he "really wanted" Guy Reynolds SC but "couldn't afford" to engage him. The defamation case and related appeal are among a host of court actions spawned by Ms Higgins' allegation of sexual assault. The Western Australian Supreme Court will next Wednesday rule on former Liberal senator Linda Reynolds' high-profile defamation case against Ms Higgins, her former employee. 1800 RESPECT (1800 737 732) National Sexual Abuse and Redress Support Service 1800 211 028
West Australian
11 hours ago
- West Australian
Adelaide Crows using the Snoop Dogg defence to lessen Izak Rankine AFL ban
The Adelaide Crows are doing everything they can to lessen the severity of the ban their star forward Izak Rankine is set to face by bringing Snoop Dogg into their defence case. Rankine, who is facing a suspension of three to five games for calling a Collingwood player a 'f.....', is still facing an anxious wait over his fate with the AFL saying on Wednesday afternoon the club had asked for more time and a decision is now expected on Thursday. The AFL has been heavy-handed in banning players who have made homophobic slurs on the field, but the Crows say this approach is at odds with paying vast amounts of money to a US rap icon - who has used the very same phrase Rankine allegedly used in his songs - to be the headline act at the grand final The Herald Sun reports. In his 1998 hit Doggz Gonna Get Ya, Snoop Dogg's lyrics include the vile phrase and his early work is infamous for being offensive and misogynist. Whether the AFL will take this argument seriously is unknown but the Crows are working furiously behind the scenes to ensure Rankine is not wiped out for the rest of the season. A three-match ban would see him return for at least one finals game with the Crows guaranteed a top-two finish. 'The AFL advises that the Adelaide Crows have requested additional time to respond to the AFL's proposed determinations regarding an alleged incident with player Izak Rankine,' an AFL spokesman said. 'The AFL has granted this request and will provide an update on the matter tomorrow.' More to come...
Perth Now
11 hours ago
- Perth Now
Bizarre Snoop Dogg link to Rankine slur ban fight
Adelaide Crows player Izak Rankine faces a five-week ban for using an alleged homophobic slur towards a Collingwood player. Magpies midfielder Steel Sidebottom supports the punishment, stating the AFL will no longer tolerate such behaviour. The Adelaide Crows are doing everything they can to lessen the severity of the ban their star forward Izak Rankine is set to face by bringing Snoop Dogg into their defence case. Rankine, who is facing a suspension of three to five games for calling a Collingwood player a 'f.....', is still facing an anxious wait over his fate with the AFL saying on Wednesday afternoon the club had asked for more time and a decision is now expected on Thursday. The AFL has been heavy-handed in banning players who have made homophobic slurs on the field, but the Crows say this approach is at odds with paying vast amounts of money to a US rap icon - who has used the very same phrase Rankine allegedly used in his songs - to be the headline act at the grand final The Herald Sun reports. In his 1998 hit Doggz Gonna Get Ya, Snoop Dogg's lyrics include the vile phrase and his early work is infamous for being offensive and misogynist. Whether the AFL will take this argument seriously is unknown but the Crows are working furiously behind the scenes to ensure Rankine is not wiped out for the rest of the season. A three-match ban would see him return for at least one finals game with the Crows guaranteed a top-two finish. 'The AFL advises that the Adelaide Crows have requested additional time to respond to the AFL's proposed determinations regarding an alleged incident with player Izak Rankine,' an AFL spokesman said. 'The AFL has granted this request and will provide an update on the matter tomorrow.' More to come...
