Two men charged for allegedly running down kangaroo with car in Melbourne suburb
Two men have been charged for allegedly running down a kangaroo in an outer Melbourne suburb.
Police allege the two men deliberately drove along Hallam North Road in Lysterfield South and into a group of kangaroos about 10.20pm on April 23.
One of the kangaroos died at the scene.
Footage of the moment the men allegedly hit the kangaroos was captured on CCTV cameras, before getting out of the car and handling the lifeless animal.
The two men, a 22-year-old from Scorseby and a 20-year-old from Ringwood, were arrested police executed a search warrant on their residential properties in conjunction with officers from the Conservation Regulator.
Officers were filmed seizing several items from the properties, including a Nissan Patrol, which was towed from the property.
Both men have been charged with aggravated cruelty to animals and destroying protected wildlife.
They will appear at Dandenong Magistrates' Court on August 19.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News.com.au
43 minutes ago
- News.com.au
One thing anti-corruption investigation into Brittany Higgins' $2.4m payout didn't reveal
There's been a great volume of ill-informed, misleading garbage flying around about the $2.4 million compensation payout to Brittany Higgins for a long time. This morning, the National Anti-Corruption Watchdog took out the trash. What did the long-running corruption investigation into the Albanese Government's decision to award the payout find after years of demands that it investigate? 'There is no evidence that the settlement process, including the legal advice provided, who was present at the mediation, or the amount, was subject to any improper influence by any Commonwealth public official,'' the NACC found. 'There is therefore no corruption issue.' In other words, claims that the Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus or the Albanese Government acted improperly were unfounded. Of course, citizens remain free to question the size of the payout, or argue that Senator Linda Reynolds, who was not present at the mediation despite her requests to attend, should have been granted greater taxpayer-funded rights to legally dispute the claim. As an aside, the Albanese Government did agree for taxpayers to pay for her lawyers to refer Brittany Higgins' payout to the NACC. Senator Reynolds' legal team is also arguing in the Federal Court that she was forced to run a defamation action in WA against Ms Higgins because of the Commonwealth's conduct in relation to the payout. But there was no evidence, according to the NACC, of corruption or improper behaviour in the decision to award Ms Higgins the compensation in 2022. 'Documents produced showed that decisions made in relation to the settlement were based on advice from independent external solicitors and experienced senior and junior counsel,'' the statement said. 'Initial advice was received during the period of the Liberal-National Coalition government, before the May 2022 election. 'There was no material difference in the updated legal advice later provided to the new Labor government. Nor was there any identifiable difference in approach to the matter before and after the change in government. 'There was no inappropriate intervention in the process by or on behalf of any minister. The then Attorney-General approved the settlement in accordance with the Departmental advice.' Mediation in one day 'unexceptional' According to the NACC, The Commonwealth engaged in mediation consistent with Departmental advice that was informed by legal advice,'' the statement says. 'That the mediation conference itself was concluded within a day is unexceptional,'' the NACC said. 'It was the culmination of a process which took approximately 12 months. None of this is unusual for a non-litigated personal injury claim. 'A critical consideration during the settlement process was avoiding ongoing trauma to Ms Higgins.' Settlement amount 'The settlement amount was less than the maximum amount recommended by the external independent legal advice,'' the statement says. 'There is no evidence that the settlement process, including the legal advice provided, who was present at the mediation, or the amount, was subject to any improper influence by any Commonwealth public official. 'To the contrary, the evidence obtained reflected a process that was based on independent external legal advice, without any inappropriate intervention by any minister of either government. There is therefore no corruption issue.' What the NACC didn't say And in the thousands of words written on this saga it's worth noting something the NACC did not mention when shooting down the conspiracy theories. The Morrison Government engaged in the exact same process when it agreed to payout $600,000 to former cabinet minister Alan Tudge's former press secretary and ex-lover Rachelle Miller in 2022. He wasn't interviewed. He was never asked about her claims as part of the final payout negotiations and he wasn't invited to the mediation. And that's the point. These settlements are not a finding of fact. They are not about making admissions about what did or did not occur. You can criticise the process by all means, but you can't say the Morrison Government didn't do the same. They are not a workplace investigation - not that many of them are much better. They are essentially 'go away' money that the government pays to people when it makes an informed decision that their claim could cost millions more if it is litigated. Payment made on no admission basis To understand the $2.4 million payout to Ms Higgins, it is important to understand a few things that are often forgotten in the thousands of words written on the matter. First, the claim was not solely based on the alleged rape. She alleged the two Liberal Senators exacerbated a 'toxic and harmful' working environment, subjected her to 'victimisation, ostracism' and pressured her not to discuss the assault. Her former employers, Linda Reynolds and Michaelia Cash, utterly reject those claims and do not concede for a moment they are true. Nor does assert they are true, only that they were made in a legal document subsequently published by the Federal Court. Crucially, neither did the Albanese Government despite making the payment. In making the settlement the government made 'no admissions'. It's hard to understand for the layperson, but the best way to describe it is 'go away' money. It's probably not surprising however that many people would assume a pay out of such magnitude meant something had gone wrong or that the government was admitting they did something wrong. In other words, the government's lawyers and insurers are making a judgment call about the likelihood of a successful case, how much damages would be paid and crucially how much the legals would cost. Inevitably, in fighting a case like this, it could cost taxpayers millions more than the payout alone. But the payout was never a finding of fact on those claims. Brittany Higgins herself was rebuked by Justice Lee in the defamation case for not understanding this and what the deed actually said. Linda Reynolds suing Brittany Higgins It's abundantly clear however that Ms Higgins' former employer, Linda Reynolds remains aggrieved and affronted by the process. She's now suing Ms Higgins for defamation over some social media posts in WA. The trial concluded in September but there's no judgment on that matter yet. In a statement released today, Ms Reynolds said she was bitterly disappointed with the decision. 'My primary concern has always been how the Commonwealth could possibly settle unsubstantiated and statute barred claims made against me, alleging egregious conduct on my part without taking a single statement from me or speaking to me at all,' Senator Reynolds said. 'The effect of the conditions was that I had no personal legal representation at the mediation and no opportunity to defend the serious and baseless allegations against me.' In her third day of witness testimony in her defamation case against Ms Higgins last year, she slammed Attorney General Mark Dreyfus over his handling of the former Liberal staffer's Commonwealth compensation claim. She accused him of trying to 'freeze' her out of the settlement process and said Mr Dreyfus denied her a chance to address Ms Higgins' criticism of the Senator's conduct in the wake of the alleged Lehrmann rape. 'I was utterly outraged because this was going to be finally my opportunity to defend against these allegations … which in my mind were utterly defendable,' she told the court. 'To be told my defence would be no defence, as you can see here, I was not to attend the mediation and not to make public comments about the mediation or the civil claims against me … I was outraged.' 'I could see immediately what the Attorney-General was trying to do, which is why I referred it to the National Anti-Corruption Commission,' she said. Ms Higgins's lawyer Rachael Young SC later told the court that Ms Higgins was 'the survivor of a serious crime which has affected every aspect of her life, including serious impacts on her mental health'. In the WA Supreme Court, the barrister said Senator Reynolds had disputed the merit of Ms Higgins's $2.4 million Commonwealth compensation payment and leaked details of that settlement to a newspaper, despite being told it was confidential information. 'The senator engaged in a course of conduct to disrupt and undermine the credibility and reliability of her former employee,' Ms Young said. 'That's why we say it's harassment.' That suggestion was fiercely denied by Ms Reynolds in the proceedings, with her legal team telling court she had kept her promise not to attack Ms Higgins at a great cost to her physical and mental health. Ms Higgins received a $2.445m settlement in December 2022 – more than three years after she was allegedly raped by her then colleague, Bruce Lehrmann, in March 2019 in Linda Reynolds' ministerial suite. Mr Lehrmann has always denied that there was any sexual contact, consensual or otherwise. Justice Michael Lee, on a civil basis in a defamation trial, disagreed. Will the NACC finding and these other inconvenient facts prompt Ms Higgins pitchfork-waving critics to consider their conduct? No chance. It will be time to shoot the messenger: the NACC. For critics of Ms Higgins and the Albanese Government who noisily demanded this be investigated for years, it is however a case of be careful what you wish for. The judgment is in and it's not pretty for those insisting that there was some vast conspiracy connected in the payout.
ABC News
an hour ago
- ABC News
Woman who allegedly lured PNG nationals to Australia with fake scholarships charged with human trafficking
A woman who allegedly lured people from Papua New Guinea to Australia with the promise of fully-funded scholarships has been charged with human trafficking. Australian Federal Police allege the 56-year-old woman forced 15 people — aged between 19 and their late 30s — to work on farms against their will instead of receiving the education they had been promised. The woman, who had been based in PNG since 2023 and worked for what police described as a "legitimate business", was arrested by AFP officers when she got off a flight at Brisbane Airport on Wednesday. She has since been charged with more than 30 offences, including human trafficking, deceptive recruitment and debt bondage — the most serious of which carries a 12-year term of imprisonment. Police said the 56-year-old was granted conditional bail after appearing in Brisbane Magistrates Court on Wednesday. The AFP first began investigating the woman in 2022 following a tip-off from Queensland Police. It is alleged the woman brought 15 PNG nationals to Australia between March 2021 and July 2023 by offering fully-funded educational scholarships. Police allege the students were then forced to sign legal documents and agree to repay costs associated with tuition, airfares, visa applications, insurance and legal fees, which placed them in excessive debt. Rather than receiving the education they were promised, the woman allegedly forced the group to work on farms at different locations in south-east Queensland, including Caboolture and the Lockyer Valley. It is alleged she received wages on their behalf, which she withheld, claiming it was repayment for their debts. AFP Detective Superintendent Adrian Telfer said the woman allegedly threatened the group with deportation if they did not comply with her instructions. "She also allegedly threatened family members back in PNG," he said. Detective Superintendent Telfer said police do not believe the business the woman worked for was involved. Detective Superintendent Telfer said police were aware of people being lured to Australia with the promise of a "dream career" or "free education" which they may otherwise not have had access to. He described the matter as "disturbing". "They are pursuing an education, a dream to come to Australia ... opportunities they don't find in their own country." Detective Superintendent Telfer said police and other support services were working with some of the 15 PNG nationals who remained in the country. He said police believe there may be more alleged victims. The woman's matter is expected to return to court in Brisbane in September.
ABC News
an hour ago
- ABC News
Erin Patterson finishes giving evidence as mushroom murder trial enters final stages
Accused triple-murderer Erin Patterson has rejected a prosecution claim she carried out factory resets in a bid to deceive police about her mobile phones, as she came to the end of eight days in the witness box in her Supreme Court trial. Ms Patterson has been charged with three counts of murder and one count of attempted murder after three relatives — her parents-in-law Don and Gail Patterson, and Gail's sister Heather Wilkinson — died from death cap mushroom poisoning following a lunch at her house on July 29, 2023. A fourth lunch guest, Heather's husband Ian Wilkinson, became gravely ill after the meal but survived. The trial of Erin Patterson, who stands accused of using a poisoned meal to murder three relatives, continues. Follow along with Thursday's hearing in our live blog. To stay up to date with this story, subscribe to ABC News. At the close of the prosecution's cross-examination, Ms Patterson reiterated her innocence of all four charges. In rapid fire, crown prosecutor Nanette Rogers SC put to Ms Patterson the crux of the charges: that she "deliberately sourced death cap mushrooms" and put them in the dish she served to her lunch guests "intending to kill them". "Agree or disagree?" Dr Rogers asked. "Disagree," Ms Patterson responded. The trial has now concluded hearing evidence and will move to closing arguments from the prosecution and defence, before the judge issues final instructions to the jury ahead of their deliberation. Over the course of the past six weeks of the murder trial, the prosecution has alleged Ms Patterson owned and used two phones with two separate SIM cards — Phone A and Phone B. Phone A was never recovered by police, but under cross-examination on Thursday Ms Patterson rejected prosecutors' assertion that that was because she had hidden the phone from police. Dr Rogers showed the court extensive phone records from a SIM card that was in Phone A up until August 5, 2023, a week after the lunch. The records indicated the phone was in regular use up until sometime between 12:01pm and 1:45pm, when the SIM card in Phone A lost connection with the network. At that time, police were conducting a search of Ms Patterson's Leongatha home. Dr Rogers put to Ms Patterson that she removed the SIM card from Phone A when she was "afforded privacy to speak with a lawyer while police were at your home". Ms Patterson disagreed and said her calls to a lawyer occurred at 2pm, after the alleged loss of connection. Ms Patterson also rejected a claim from prosecutors that the reason she had conducted three factory resets on Phone B was so she could deceive police and "pass [it] off" as her regular phone. When police executed a search warrant on Ms Patterson's home on August 5, a week after the deadly lunch, it was Phone B that she gave to police. The prosecution suggested she did so as she knew there was no data on the phone to potentially incriminate her, which Ms Patterson denied. Dr Rogers took Ms Patterson to records of three factory resets made on Phone B. Ms Patterson had previously told the court of the following reasons for factory resetting the phone on these dates in 2023: On Thursday, Dr Rogers suggested to Ms Patterson she had carried out those resets for another reason. "I suggest that you did three factory resets of this phone, Phone B ... to conceal the true contents of Phone B ... so you could then pass off Phone B as your usual mobile phone, without police realising," Dr Rogers says. Ms Patterson agreed she carried out the three resets, but disagreed that she did for the reasons Dr Rogers suggested. Dr Rogers went on to assert that it was "all about hiding the contents of your usual mobile phone, Phone A", which she asserted Ms Patterson had "deliberately concealed" because she knew the data on that device would "incriminate" her. Ms Patterson rejected this assertion too. Throughout several days of cross-examination, Ms Patterson's voice largely remained level as she answered prosecutors' questions. But during re-examination by her barrister, Colin Mandy SC, her voice became choked when asked about the need for her to pack her daughter's bag for a ballet rehearsal on the Monday after the lunch. The prosecution asserted this was in fact never required, but Ms Patterson reaffirmed under re-examination that it was. Ms Patterson's voice again cracked when discussing her son's flying lesson, explaining she did not cancel it following the lunch as he was "really passionate" about flying and "I just didn't want to disappoint him". The defence also asked about contradictions that arose during Ms Patterson's cross-examination, such as her claim she had had an appointment in September 2023 to explore gastric-bypass surgery at a Melbourne clinic that did not in fact offer it. Ms Patterson told the court that in 2023, she had believed the clinic offered gastric-band surgery, but on Thursday said she was "obviously mistaken". She told the court she had also intended to explore liposuction options. Mr Mandy then asked Ms Patterson about the sixth beef Wellington she cooked, which the prosecution has alleged was prepared in case her estranged husband attended the lunch and she could poison him as well. Ms Patterson told the court she simply had an extra steak because of the way the eye fillets she bought were packaged. "I had five twin packs, I put two of the twin packs in the freezer and just decided to use the other six, I had enough ingredients ... so I did that," she said. The trial continues.
