Man fighting for life after shooting west of Mackay
A man has life-threatening injuries after a shooting incident west of Mackay in North Queensland.
Police and paramedics were called to a property at Devereux Creek, about 35 kilometres west of Mackay, just before 10:30am.
The man in his 30s has been taken to Mackay Base Hospital in a life-threatening condition.
Police said there was no threat to the public.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
21 minutes ago
- ABC News
Closing addresses underway in Erin Patterson trial
Erin Patterson's defence barrister has told the jury in her triple-murder trial that the "devoted" mother had no motive to deprive her children of their "wonderful" grandparents.
ABC News
35 minutes ago
- ABC News
Churches to be held vicariously liable for abuse under new Victorian laws to be proposed to parliament
Churches will be held vicariously liable for abuse committed by their priests under new Victorian laws to be introduced to parliament by the end of the year. The retrospective legislation seeks to overcome a 2024 High Court ruling that the Ballarat Catholic Diocese could not be held liable for the abuse of notorious paedophile priest Bryan Coffey because he was not a church employee. The landmark decision threw dozens of compensation cases brought by victim-survivors against institutions into doubt, with lawyers and advocates saying it added to their trauma. Attorneys-general across Australia have since discussed the changes and victim-survivors have led a major campaign for states to fix the law, with private members bills introduced by the Legalise Cannabis Party in Victoria and NSW parliaments. There has been a groundswell of support from Labor MPs in Victoria with more than 40 signing a letter backing retrospective laws and demanding action from cabinet. Senior ministers also met with victim-survivors and lawyers in Victoria in recent months. Victorian Attorney-General Sonya Kilkenny on Tuesday told her party's weekly caucus meeting that Victoria would introduce retrospective laws to parliament by the end of 2025. Ms Kilkenny told the ABC she had instructed her department to begin drafting legislation. She acknowledged many victim-survivors felt ignored. "We are listening, this government is listening, and we will develop legislation that will be before the parliament as soon as possible,'' she said. Maurice Blackburn principal lawyer John Rule said last year's High Court decision had created "a whole lot of uncertainty and fear" for many clients. "The survivors felt like their legal rights had been stripped away by the High Court decision," he said. "It's a really positive move that the Victorian government is leading the way here. Introducing changes to the law will give survivors hope that steps are being taken to ensure their legal rights are protected." Lawyer Judy Courtin, who has a long history of taking on institutions over abuse claims, said she was pleased with the government's decision. But she said there was no need to wait another six months for changes, with a private members bill already tabled and being debated in parliament. "The government has the perfect bill already. It can tinker with it and put its own moniker on it," she said. "It is ready to go." Dr Courtin and others have warned delays were making some complainants suicidal because they feel the system is working against them. "Seven critical months have already elapsed since the High Court judgement was handed down and our [state] government was put on notice," she said. "Impacted victims are losing their claims and suffering additional, unimaginable psychiatric harm." She said it was imperative that the government moved quickly so court dates set before the High Court decision were not jeopardised. Other states have vicarious liability laws but they were not retrospective. Critics warn the laws could have unintended consequences, especially for community sporting clubs and youth groups where people holding volunteer roles may have perpetrated abuse.
ABC News
2 hours ago
- ABC News
Erin Patterson had no reason to murder in-laws with toxic mushrooms, defence tells jury
Erin Patterson's defence barrister has told the jury in her triple-murder trial that the "devoted" mother had no motive to deprive her children of their "wonderful" grandparents. Ms Patterson, 50, has pleaded not guilty to three charges of murder and one of attempted murder over a beef Wellington lunch she hosted at her regional Victorian home in 2023. The trial of Erin Patterson, who stands accused of using a poisoned meal to murder three relatives, continues. Look back at how Tuesday's hearing unfolded in our live blog. To stay up to date with this story, subscribe to ABC News. On Monday, prosecutors told the jury Ms Patterson had engaged in four substantial deceptions as part of the alleged murder plot. Crown prosecutor Nanette Rogers SC said these were a lie to the guests about cancer, the "secretion" of death cap mushrooms in a "nourishing meal" of individually parcelled beef Wellingtons, feigned illness after the lunch and a sustained cover-up as guests fell critically ill. On Tuesday morning, Dr Rogers wrapped up her closing address by telling the jury a fifth deception had been played upon it, when the accused spun a "carefully constructed narrative" in court in a bid to fit the evidence against her. She said "perhaps the starkest" of these was Ms Patterson's evidence about plans to undergo gastric-bypass surgery a few months after the lunch. During her evidence, Ms Patterson told the court she had booked an appointment for gastric-bypass surgery at a clinic in Melbourne and had lied to relatives about potential cancer treatment as a cover story. When she was told in cross-examination that the clinic did not offer gastric-band surgery, Ms Patterson said she must have been "mistaken" and she had also been considering liposuction. "There's no way that the accused's earlier evidence can be twisted to fit that new claim," Dr Rogers told the jury. The prosecution alleged several other lies were told by Ms Patterson in the period surrounding the lunch, including admitted lies to police about owning a food dehydrator and foraging for mushrooms. "Erin Patterson told so many lies it's hard to keep up with them," Dr Rogers said. Dr Rogers told the jury Ms Patterson was "not a credible witness" and significant parts of the defence case that rested solely on her evidence should be closely scrutinised. She also told the jury it should disregard any claim from the defence that Ms Patterson's actions after the lunch were the result of "innocent panic" rather than a sustained cover-up. The prosecutor said any parent who believed their children may have consumed death cap mushrooms would "move mountains" to get them to hospital, in contrast to Ms Patterson's initial reluctance to take her children out of school. Dr Rogers also told the jury that Ms Patterson's venting to Facebook friends about her in-laws showed that the accused was "leading a duplicitous life when it came to the Pattersons". "She presented one side, while expressing contrary beliefs to others," Dr Rogers said. In closing her address, Dr Rogers told jurors they should make their deliberations based on the facts before them. "You may not want to believe that anyone could be capable of doing what the accused has done," she said, describing the alleged actions as "horrible", "cold" and "beyond comprehension". "But look at the evidence, don't let your emotional reaction dictate your verdict one way or the other." In his closing address, defence barrister Colin Mandy SC told the jury the prosecution had been "cherry picking" evidence that suited their case, while "disregarding inconvenient truths" that challenged it. He told the jury if they believed there was a reasonable possibility that death cap mushrooms were added to the meal accidentally and a reasonable possibility that Ms Patterson did not intend to kill or cause serious injury to her guests, then they should find her not guilty. The lawyer said the prosecution case lacked a motive, which would usually be "fundamental" to proving the required element in the charges of intent to kill or seriously injure. Mr Mandy told the jury there had been evidence during the trial that demonstrated a warm relationship existed between his client and her in-laws. "Erin Patterson had a motive to keep these people in her world so that they could keep supporting her and her children," he said. "And there's absolutely no doubt that Don and Gail had a great relationship with [their grandchildren] … absolutely no doubt that Erin was devoted to her children. Mr Mandy told the jury it should regard a period of tension that arose between Erin and Simon Patterson over financial matters as a "brief spat" about child support which was "resolved amicably" before too long. Mr Mandy said there was no proof to support the idea that this tension could have formed a reason for Ms Patterson murdering her husband's parents and aunt and uncle. "It's an unsatisfactory piece of evidence," he said. Mr Mandy told the jury an "intelligent person carefully planning a murder" in the way alleged by the prosecution would know that they and the meal they had prepared would come "under suspicion" and that they would be in the "spotlight". He said Ms Patterson's actions after the lunch — including disposing of the dehydrator at a tip and paying with her own bank card — were born out of panic and not guilt. "If you're planning a murder, what's the one thing you really should plan to dispose of? That's the murder weapon," Mr Mandy said. He suggested to the jury that if the deadly meal had been premeditated, Ms Patterson "would've disposed of [the dehydrator] months before and never told anyone she had one". "It speaks volumes about her state of mind," he said. Mr Mandy is expected to continue delivering his closing address for the defence on Wednesday.
