Latest news with #AnthonySpence
ABC News
17-07-2025
- ABC News
NSW Police officer Reuben Timperley found not guilty of multiple domestic violence offences
A suspended NSW Police officer accused of domestic violence offences against a former partner has been found not guilty of multiple assaults and intimidation. Constable Reuben Timperley, 28, was charged in January with seven offences against the woman, alleged to have occurred while he was off-duty between October 2022 and March 2024. On Wednesday, three counts of stalking/intimidation intending to cause fear of physical harm were dismissed after a hearing in Parramatta Local Court, primarily due to evidentiary aspects. Magistrate Anthony Spence found there was no case to answer. On Thursday, he also found the officer not guilty of three common assaults and a further count of intimidation. Magistrate Spence described the woman's evidence as "reasonably compelling" in some respects, but said he held concerns as to its reliability, leaving him with reasonable doubts about Mr Timperley's guilt. The woman recalled an incident between March and May 2023 where she alleged she was pushed onto a bed by Mr Timperley, before he pinned her down and held her wrist. The prosecutor characterised the alleged assault as "extremely forceful". It was not alleged there was any physical blow delivered, but the woman told the court she "felt like he was going to hurt me". Mr Timperley's defence lawyer, Paul McGirr, put to the complainant that there was "pushing and shoving" and suggested she was the aggressor, which she denied. She accepted that during this incident, she bit him on the chest. Mr Timperley was also accused of assaulting the woman by pushing her at her house in November or December 2023, at a point when they were no longer in a relationship. The woman recalled arguments had developed and she asked him to leave, before Mr Timperley "just switch[ed]" and began to verbally abuse her. Under cross-examination, she denied she was trying to stop him leaving. In March 2024, the woman visited Mr Timperley and another argument developed, before he allegedly pushed her as she was leaving. According to the prosecution's case, during that same incident, Mr Timperley said: "You're going to go down". In her evidence, the woman recalled that alleged comment as "you're going to be f****ed". She gave evidence that Mr Timperley followed her to the lifts and she felt intimidated. "I felt I wasn't going to be able to get out of the situation where he was getting increasingly more aggravated," she told the court. Magistrate Spence said CCTV of that incident was "open to conflicting interpretations". In finding Mr Timperley not guilty of the remaining four charges, he said issues of credibility and reliability were "extremely important" in a word-against-word case. The magistrate said the woman presented as a "confident and articulate young woman" who gave coherent evidence. He considered that her apparent motivation for giving a police statement in March last year was for restricted conduct orders against Mr Timperley. The court heard the woman felt "he was controlling me" and that Mr Timperley had mentioned a previous legal matter "that made no sense to me why he would know that". There was no evidence presented that Mr Timperley had used his position to access the police database and access restricted information. Magistrate Spence described the officer's evidence as given "in a very calm and seemingly dispassionate way". Mr McGirr has sought a costs order, taking aim at the police investigation and arguing investigating officers "weren't interested in anything that was exculpatory". In a separate case, Mr Timperley had also previously been found guilty of illegally accessing the police database in 2021 to look up a woman he was dating. He was spared a conviction, handed a conditional release order and was allowed to keep his job. Mr Timperley's employment was placed "under review" when he was charged over the more recent allegations in January. NSW Police confirmed he remained suspended without pay as of Thursday.
ABC News
10-07-2025
- Politics
- ABC News
What we learnt from the Macquarie Point stadium Planning Commission hearings
They've been staged in the shadow of a state election, but the Tasmanian Planning Commission hearings into the Macquarie Point stadium have provided perhaps the sharpest level of detail about the proposed project. Held over the past two weeks, the hearings have formed part of the Project of State Significance process and provided almost 30 stakeholders with the opportunity to present evidence to the planning commission panel assessing the stadium. The project proponent, the Macquarie Point Development Corporation (MPDC), has also had the opportunity to respond to the panel's draft integrated assessment report released earlier this year. Stakeholders were grilled by the panel and lawyers representing both the proponent, and a group opposing the stadium. So, what went on inside the hearings? Click on the bullet points to jump to each section. Lawyers representing the state, Chris Townshend KC and Anthony Spence, based most of their arguments on what constituted an appropriate use of the Macquarie Point site, and the legislation under which the MPDC was operating under. The state posited the planning commission had over relied on a 1991 planning review of the Sullivans Cove area in its draft report, and not enough weight had been given to more current and relevant legislation such as the Macquarie Point Development Corporation Act. The basis for large parts of its argument was that Macquarie Point had been earmarked for development under specific legislation, and that the Project of State Significance process effectively "turned off" other planning schemes. In its opening submission, it told the panel that it would refer to a number of expert witnesses over the course of the hearings. The panel heard from local architects Leigh Woolley and Jerry De Gryse, who shared concerns about the stadium's size, scale and bulk. Mr De Gryse questioned whether the stadium precinct would be adequately publicly accessible, while Mr Woolley argued that the Domain headland would be "diminished and overwhelmed" by the stadium. Architect and heritage expert Jim Gard'ner presented revised impact assessments of the stadium on various locations around Hobart, based on fresh photo montages submitted by the proponent. He rated the stadium as having a "major" impact on the Hobart Cenotaph, but downgraded its indirect impact on four other sites. For example, Mr Gard'ner had previously rated the stadium's indirect impact on the UTAS Arts building on Hunter Street as 'very high' but downgraded that to 'medium' based on the new images. He recommended several conditions be applied to a planning permit, mostly relating to design tweaks which he believed would lessen the stadium's impact on the surrounding heritage area. Stadium designers, Cox Architecture, presented a new "fly through" of the stadium, as well as an explanation of the stadium design to date. Cox principal director Alastair Richardson was questioned on a wide range of elements, including stadium materials, roof beams, vehicle access, the proposed use of the Goods Shed and the stadium roof. Back to top The roof, and its potential impacts, were widely discussed. Planning expert Neil Shepherd, presenting on behalf of the MPDC, said, "the roof represents the element that will provide the greatest visual impact, in my opinion". But he argued "perceptions about the visual prominence of the building must be balanced against the desired role and functionality of the proposal in the chosen location". Respected town planner and urban designer Tim Biles, on behalf of the opponents group Our Place, launched a passionate critique of the stadium roof, decrying its potential impacts on the Hobart Cenotaph Mr Shepherd, in response to questions from planning commission panellist Shelley Penn, said he took the view "the significance of the cenotaph would remain, and that the roof would be another element in the view field". The level of roof transparency, and its potential reflectivity was also raised. Roland Browne, on behalf of Our Place, contended the Mount Nelson vista may not be able to be seen from the Cenotaph through the roof, due to the thickness of the ETFE (ethylene tetrafluoroethylene) material. More information was submitted relating to Cricket Australia and Cricket Tasmania's concern with the roof, and the effect of shadowing it may cause on the cricket pitch. Back to top A major theme of the hearings was the stadium's visual impact, and how its physical presence may affect the city of Hobart. MPDC presented "visual amenity evidence", including new photo montages of the stadium from various viewpoints around the city, produced by architect Chris Goss of Melbourne-based firm Orbit Solutions. In response, anti-stadium group Our Place submitted an analysis of Mr Goss's images, compiled by landscape architect Barry Murphy. Our Place contested that the Orbit images presented the stadium with a "transparent" roof rather than a "translucent" roof, and questioned why Mr Goss's photo montages were compiled from viewpoints that were obscured by, in one example, a street sign, and, in a shot from the cenotaph, by a visiting cruise ship. Our Place had previously submitted its own photo montages, compiled by local architect Hamish Saul. In a separate submission though, Mr Murphy, Mr Saul and Mr Goss co-signed a "statement of agreed facts" that concluded that Orbit's 3D model of the stadium building was more accurate in relation to the stadium's materiality, its form and mass, and its geometry, compared with Mr Saul's. However, the statement acknowledged a difference in opinion about the roof rendition and focal length used to take the photos, which Mr Murphy argued in his submission should have been 50mm instead of 20mm. Back to top The panel heard from KPMG economists who prepared economic, financial impact and social benefits reports for the proponent last year. Michael Malakellis and David Harradine argued while their economic analysis found the benefit-cost ratio for the stadium would be less than one, they stressed the project should not be assessed in strict economic terms, given its unquantifiable social and brand value benefits. Stadiums Tasmania chief executive James Avery also made a lengthy presentation to the panel, in which he revealed an updated operating model for the stadium had been developed. He said it estimated the stadium would make $2.2 million per year before taxes, depreciation and amortisation — a way of managing the cost of intangible assets or loans — as opposed to a loss of more than $3 million per year under a previous model. It was based on the new capital cost of the stadium, which was $945 million, but, unlike before, it now includes state ownership of food and beverage facilities, advertising boards, and premium hospitality. The stadium is now forecast to host 37 major events, 40 2-day conferences and 260 "minor events" such as business functions and corporate dinners per year, accounting for 334 events across 377 days. Representatives from Tourism Tasmania and Business Events Tasmania also fronted the hearings highlighting the significance of the proposed 1,500-person conference centre, as did independent local economist Graeme Wells, who disputed some of KPMG's findings. The panel also heard from the Tasmanian Symphony Orchestra, which had expressed concern about noise and vibration from the stadium during both the construction and operational phases. In its submission, it proposed a number of conditions that should be applied, should planning approval for the stadium be granted. Back to top The panel heard a planned underground car park has been reduced from three levels to two, and from 532 spaces to 374, reduced to keep the car park above the groundwater table. The car park is expected to service the entire Macquarie Point precinct and is estimated to cost $97 million. However, according to the MPDC, that cost will not be worn by the state, as the car park "is intended to be delivered as a commercial development opportunity and run by a private operator". The MPDC also states the car park is not required for the stadium's operations. Graeme Steverson of consultants WSP presented to the panel on transport matters, on behalf of the MPDC. He modelled a range of traffic and transport scenarios for large-scale sporting and concert events. Cox Architecture submitted diagrams that showed egress from the stadium in the event of an emergency, and fielded questions about the safety of the venue. Back to top Several stakeholders raised what they said was a lack of consultation by the MPDC and the state Government to the panel as a major concern. Daniel Hanna, representing Federal Group, which owns several properties on the Hobart waterfront, said the stadium would be detrimental to his company's business and that Federal had not been adequately consulted. Lawyers representing the MPDC referenced seven meetings between 2023 and 2024 between the proponent and Federal regarding the stadium, but Mr Hanna did not consider those meetings as adequate consultation. Historian and Aboriginal heritage experts Greg Lehman and Daphne Habibis echoed those sentiments, as did Nala Mansell from the Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre. Ms Mansell said Aboriginal land at Macquarie Point should be transferred to the Tasmanian Aboriginal people. Back to top The panel heard from the Environment Protection Authority (EPA), which had previously expressed concern about groundwater and contaminated fill at Macquarie Point. The MPDC submitted that only about 10 per cent of fill material earmarked to be excavated will be "level three" material — material that requires an additional level of disposal and storage management. The EPA submission outlined conditions it believed should be imposed, should the stadium development proceed, including that the director of the EPA be able to approve a stadium Construction Environmental Management Plan, and have a role in approving stadium design plans. It also wants to be the body responsible for enforcing those, and other conditions. Back to top The Tasmania Football Club, the Devils, was represented by chief executive officer Brendon Gale, who told the panel via a presentation that the stadium was crucial to the club's business case and viability. He said that "net stadium revenues" accounted for 47 per cent of a typical AFL club's revenue and called them "the most significant driver of financial competitive and financial strength" of a club. He added that stadium revenues accounted for just 43 per cent of club revenue 10 years ago. Mr Gale said there existed a strong correlation between a club's off-field financial strength and their on-field success. Back to top
