Latest news with #NSWSupremeCourt
The Advertiser
11 hours ago
- The Advertiser
Father and son found guilty of teen's car chase murder
A high-speed chase turned deadly when a father and son caught up to the car they were pursuing and shot a teenager. John Paul Evans, 57, and his son Keith Evans, 31, faced a trial in the NSW Supreme Court after pleading not guilty to the murder of 19-year-old Jesse Thompson in 2017. The jury was told the pair were in a ute speeding through the streets of Wyong, on the NSW Central Coast, in pursuit of a Toyota Kluger. Keith Evans was holding a shotgun that discharged at Mr Thompson, who was sitting in the back seat of the second car when he was struck. The 19-year-old died from his injuries. After deliberating for more than a week, the 12 jurors returned verdicts of guilty for both father and son on Wednesday morning. The men were convicted of murdering Mr Thompson more than eight years after the teenager was killed in what was framed as an act of retribution. The jury was told Keith Evans had assaulted the teenager's friend, Jayke Rodgers, to the point of hospitalisation in the days leading up to the deadly car chase. On the day of the pursuit, Mr Rodgers and some of his friends retaliated by smashing a glass door at the Evans' family home. They later met with more friends at a local park and piled into the Kluger before becoming involved in a car chase with the Evans' ute. One of the key issues for the jurors to consider was whether Keith Evans intended to fire the shotgun, or whether it was an accident. In delivering its guilty verdict, the jury determined he and his father were responsible for Mr Thompson's death. Both men will be sentenced at a later date. A high-speed chase turned deadly when a father and son caught up to the car they were pursuing and shot a teenager. John Paul Evans, 57, and his son Keith Evans, 31, faced a trial in the NSW Supreme Court after pleading not guilty to the murder of 19-year-old Jesse Thompson in 2017. The jury was told the pair were in a ute speeding through the streets of Wyong, on the NSW Central Coast, in pursuit of a Toyota Kluger. Keith Evans was holding a shotgun that discharged at Mr Thompson, who was sitting in the back seat of the second car when he was struck. The 19-year-old died from his injuries. After deliberating for more than a week, the 12 jurors returned verdicts of guilty for both father and son on Wednesday morning. The men were convicted of murdering Mr Thompson more than eight years after the teenager was killed in what was framed as an act of retribution. The jury was told Keith Evans had assaulted the teenager's friend, Jayke Rodgers, to the point of hospitalisation in the days leading up to the deadly car chase. On the day of the pursuit, Mr Rodgers and some of his friends retaliated by smashing a glass door at the Evans' family home. They later met with more friends at a local park and piled into the Kluger before becoming involved in a car chase with the Evans' ute. One of the key issues for the jurors to consider was whether Keith Evans intended to fire the shotgun, or whether it was an accident. In delivering its guilty verdict, the jury determined he and his father were responsible for Mr Thompson's death. Both men will be sentenced at a later date. A high-speed chase turned deadly when a father and son caught up to the car they were pursuing and shot a teenager. John Paul Evans, 57, and his son Keith Evans, 31, faced a trial in the NSW Supreme Court after pleading not guilty to the murder of 19-year-old Jesse Thompson in 2017. The jury was told the pair were in a ute speeding through the streets of Wyong, on the NSW Central Coast, in pursuit of a Toyota Kluger. Keith Evans was holding a shotgun that discharged at Mr Thompson, who was sitting in the back seat of the second car when he was struck. The 19-year-old died from his injuries. After deliberating for more than a week, the 12 jurors returned verdicts of guilty for both father and son on Wednesday morning. The men were convicted of murdering Mr Thompson more than eight years after the teenager was killed in what was framed as an act of retribution. The jury was told Keith Evans had assaulted the teenager's friend, Jayke Rodgers, to the point of hospitalisation in the days leading up to the deadly car chase. On the day of the pursuit, Mr Rodgers and some of his friends retaliated by smashing a glass door at the Evans' family home. They later met with more friends at a local park and piled into the Kluger before becoming involved in a car chase with the Evans' ute. One of the key issues for the jurors to consider was whether Keith Evans intended to fire the shotgun, or whether it was an accident. In delivering its guilty verdict, the jury determined he and his father were responsible for Mr Thompson's death. Both men will be sentenced at a later date. A high-speed chase turned deadly when a father and son caught up to the car they were pursuing and shot a teenager. John Paul Evans, 57, and his son Keith Evans, 31, faced a trial in the NSW Supreme Court after pleading not guilty to the murder of 19-year-old Jesse Thompson in 2017. The jury was told the pair were in a ute speeding through the streets of Wyong, on the NSW Central Coast, in pursuit of a Toyota Kluger. Keith Evans was holding a shotgun that discharged at Mr Thompson, who was sitting in the back seat of the second car when he was struck. The 19-year-old died from his injuries. After deliberating for more than a week, the 12 jurors returned verdicts of guilty for both father and son on Wednesday morning. The men were convicted of murdering Mr Thompson more than eight years after the teenager was killed in what was framed as an act of retribution. The jury was told Keith Evans had assaulted the teenager's friend, Jayke Rodgers, to the point of hospitalisation in the days leading up to the deadly car chase. On the day of the pursuit, Mr Rodgers and some of his friends retaliated by smashing a glass door at the Evans' family home. They later met with more friends at a local park and piled into the Kluger before becoming involved in a car chase with the Evans' ute. One of the key issues for the jurors to consider was whether Keith Evans intended to fire the shotgun, or whether it was an accident. In delivering its guilty verdict, the jury determined he and his father were responsible for Mr Thompson's death. Both men will be sentenced at a later date.
Perth Now
12 hours ago
- Perth Now
Father and son found guilty of teen's car chase murder
A high-speed chase turned deadly when a father and son caught up to the car they were pursuing and shot a teenager. John Paul Evans, 57, and his son Keith Evans, 31, faced a trial in the NSW Supreme Court after pleading not guilty to the murder of 19-year-old Jesse Thompson in 2017. The jury was told the pair were in a ute speeding through the streets of Wyong, on the NSW Central Coast, in pursuit of a Toyota Kluger. Keith Evans was holding a shotgun that discharged at Mr Thompson, who was sitting in the back seat of the second car when he was struck. The 19-year-old died from his injuries. After deliberating for more than a week, the 12 jurors returned verdicts of guilty for both father and son on Wednesday morning. The men were convicted of murdering Mr Thompson more than eight years after the teenager was killed in what was framed as an act of retribution. The jury was told Keith Evans had assaulted the teenager's friend, Jayke Rodgers, to the point of hospitalisation in the days leading up to the deadly car chase. On the day of the pursuit, Mr Rodgers and some of his friends retaliated by smashing a glass door at the Evans' family home. They later met with more friends at a local park and piled into the Kluger before becoming involved in a car chase with the Evans' ute. One of the key issues for the jurors to consider was whether Keith Evans intended to fire the shotgun, or whether it was an accident. In delivering its guilty verdict, the jury determined he and his father were responsible for Mr Thompson's death. Both men will be sentenced at a later date.
The Advertiser
5 days ago
- Business
- The Advertiser
Supreme Court battle after popular Darby Street restaurant sold for $2
THE operator of a well-known Newcastle Thai restaurant breached her duties as a director when she sold Benjamas Thai to a company she owned for $2, the NSW Supreme Court has found. Ratcharin Sopharak was the sole director of Sorak Thai Pty Ltd, which operated the popular Darby Street restaurant. Ms Sopharak had been running the restaurant since 2019 after coming to an arrangement with the owner, Xuming Du. But after the pair had fallen out, the court heard that Ms Sopharak set up a new company known as Sorak & Co and sold the restaurant business to it for $2. This included $1 for equipment and $1 for goodwill. The court heard Ms Sopharak signed a document titled 'minutes of a director meeting' on July 4, 2022. As the sole director of Sorak Thai, she voted to sell the restaurant business under a contract to her company, including transferring the lease of the Darby Street premises. At the time of the sale, Sorak Thai had $33,834 in cash and equipment valued at $10,174. This was all transferred to the new company, but Sorak Thai's tax debt of almost $100,000 was not included in the sale agreement and was left in the company. Justice Mark Richmond found this week that Ms Sopharak breached her duties as a director in the $2 sale. He said the sale took place "behind Mr Du's back" and left him with the burden of the company's tax debt without the restaurant business to pay it off. "The explanation for the sale transaction was that she believed if she ran the restaurant without Mr Du's involvement, she could make it profitable," Justice Richmond said. "However, the evidence establishes that he had little or no involvement in the running of the business." Justice Richmond did not accept Ms Sopharak's defence that she acted honestly in the sale. "She made no attempt to establish whether the business was worth more than $2, and it seems highly likely that it was given that the transfer occurred without the burden of the liabilities of the business, which were left behind with the company," he said. "I infer that she knew that she was likely to benefit personally from the sale, as the sole director and shareholder of the second defendant." Before making a judgement in the case, Justice Richmond ordered both sides to provide a potential agreement within 14 days. "The sale transaction was not in the best interests of the company because it was not an arm's length transaction for value and the company was left without any assets from which to meet its significant liabilities to the ATO," he said. THE operator of a well-known Newcastle Thai restaurant breached her duties as a director when she sold Benjamas Thai to a company she owned for $2, the NSW Supreme Court has found. Ratcharin Sopharak was the sole director of Sorak Thai Pty Ltd, which operated the popular Darby Street restaurant. Ms Sopharak had been running the restaurant since 2019 after coming to an arrangement with the owner, Xuming Du. But after the pair had fallen out, the court heard that Ms Sopharak set up a new company known as Sorak & Co and sold the restaurant business to it for $2. This included $1 for equipment and $1 for goodwill. The court heard Ms Sopharak signed a document titled 'minutes of a director meeting' on July 4, 2022. As the sole director of Sorak Thai, she voted to sell the restaurant business under a contract to her company, including transferring the lease of the Darby Street premises. At the time of the sale, Sorak Thai had $33,834 in cash and equipment valued at $10,174. This was all transferred to the new company, but Sorak Thai's tax debt of almost $100,000 was not included in the sale agreement and was left in the company. Justice Mark Richmond found this week that Ms Sopharak breached her duties as a director in the $2 sale. He said the sale took place "behind Mr Du's back" and left him with the burden of the company's tax debt without the restaurant business to pay it off. "The explanation for the sale transaction was that she believed if she ran the restaurant without Mr Du's involvement, she could make it profitable," Justice Richmond said. "However, the evidence establishes that he had little or no involvement in the running of the business." Justice Richmond did not accept Ms Sopharak's defence that she acted honestly in the sale. "She made no attempt to establish whether the business was worth more than $2, and it seems highly likely that it was given that the transfer occurred without the burden of the liabilities of the business, which were left behind with the company," he said. "I infer that she knew that she was likely to benefit personally from the sale, as the sole director and shareholder of the second defendant." Before making a judgement in the case, Justice Richmond ordered both sides to provide a potential agreement within 14 days. "The sale transaction was not in the best interests of the company because it was not an arm's length transaction for value and the company was left without any assets from which to meet its significant liabilities to the ATO," he said. THE operator of a well-known Newcastle Thai restaurant breached her duties as a director when she sold Benjamas Thai to a company she owned for $2, the NSW Supreme Court has found. Ratcharin Sopharak was the sole director of Sorak Thai Pty Ltd, which operated the popular Darby Street restaurant. Ms Sopharak had been running the restaurant since 2019 after coming to an arrangement with the owner, Xuming Du. But after the pair had fallen out, the court heard that Ms Sopharak set up a new company known as Sorak & Co and sold the restaurant business to it for $2. This included $1 for equipment and $1 for goodwill. The court heard Ms Sopharak signed a document titled 'minutes of a director meeting' on July 4, 2022. As the sole director of Sorak Thai, she voted to sell the restaurant business under a contract to her company, including transferring the lease of the Darby Street premises. At the time of the sale, Sorak Thai had $33,834 in cash and equipment valued at $10,174. This was all transferred to the new company, but Sorak Thai's tax debt of almost $100,000 was not included in the sale agreement and was left in the company. Justice Mark Richmond found this week that Ms Sopharak breached her duties as a director in the $2 sale. He said the sale took place "behind Mr Du's back" and left him with the burden of the company's tax debt without the restaurant business to pay it off. "The explanation for the sale transaction was that she believed if she ran the restaurant without Mr Du's involvement, she could make it profitable," Justice Richmond said. "However, the evidence establishes that he had little or no involvement in the running of the business." Justice Richmond did not accept Ms Sopharak's defence that she acted honestly in the sale. "She made no attempt to establish whether the business was worth more than $2, and it seems highly likely that it was given that the transfer occurred without the burden of the liabilities of the business, which were left behind with the company," he said. "I infer that she knew that she was likely to benefit personally from the sale, as the sole director and shareholder of the second defendant." Before making a judgement in the case, Justice Richmond ordered both sides to provide a potential agreement within 14 days. "The sale transaction was not in the best interests of the company because it was not an arm's length transaction for value and the company was left without any assets from which to meet its significant liabilities to the ATO," he said. THE operator of a well-known Newcastle Thai restaurant breached her duties as a director when she sold Benjamas Thai to a company she owned for $2, the NSW Supreme Court has found. Ratcharin Sopharak was the sole director of Sorak Thai Pty Ltd, which operated the popular Darby Street restaurant. Ms Sopharak had been running the restaurant since 2019 after coming to an arrangement with the owner, Xuming Du. But after the pair had fallen out, the court heard that Ms Sopharak set up a new company known as Sorak & Co and sold the restaurant business to it for $2. This included $1 for equipment and $1 for goodwill. The court heard Ms Sopharak signed a document titled 'minutes of a director meeting' on July 4, 2022. As the sole director of Sorak Thai, she voted to sell the restaurant business under a contract to her company, including transferring the lease of the Darby Street premises. At the time of the sale, Sorak Thai had $33,834 in cash and equipment valued at $10,174. This was all transferred to the new company, but Sorak Thai's tax debt of almost $100,000 was not included in the sale agreement and was left in the company. Justice Mark Richmond found this week that Ms Sopharak breached her duties as a director in the $2 sale. He said the sale took place "behind Mr Du's back" and left him with the burden of the company's tax debt without the restaurant business to pay it off. "The explanation for the sale transaction was that she believed if she ran the restaurant without Mr Du's involvement, she could make it profitable," Justice Richmond said. "However, the evidence establishes that he had little or no involvement in the running of the business." Justice Richmond did not accept Ms Sopharak's defence that she acted honestly in the sale. "She made no attempt to establish whether the business was worth more than $2, and it seems highly likely that it was given that the transfer occurred without the burden of the liabilities of the business, which were left behind with the company," he said. "I infer that she knew that she was likely to benefit personally from the sale, as the sole director and shareholder of the second defendant." Before making a judgement in the case, Justice Richmond ordered both sides to provide a potential agreement within 14 days. "The sale transaction was not in the best interests of the company because it was not an arm's length transaction for value and the company was left without any assets from which to meet its significant liabilities to the ATO," he said.
The Age
6 days ago
- Entertainment
- The Age
A right royalty battle: Why some actors get repeatedly shafted
Training thoroughbreds proved a lucrative vocation for Gai Waterhouse, but she'd be hard-pressed to find a pony that can deliver as enduring a return as her 1978 appearance on cult UK TV series Doctor Who. For nearly half a century, Waterhouse has received an annual royalty payment from Doctor Who 's owner, the BBC. Last month, it was $225.57. 'In another lifetime, I acted in London,' she explains. 'I'm still receiving royalties. Isn't it incredible?' At 23, she starred as an animal pelt-wearing hunter named Presta, opposite the fourth doctor, Tom Baker. Last year, the BBC estimated the show made £100 million annually in licensing, merchandising deals and broadcast sales. However, Waterhouse is a rarity; back then, 'residuals' weren't common for actors. From 1968 to 1970, Sydney actor Tony Bonner, now 81, played the dashing helicopter pilot Jerry King on Skippy, another hugely successful TV series that screened in more than 100 countries. Bonner launched an ambitious court case in 2008 for a share of royalties, suing the production company, Fauna, for $750,000 in the NSW Supreme Court. But Bonner's claim failed after Justice Ian Gzell found Bonner had been paid $140 a week in accordance with his contract and was not entitled to any further share of Skippy 's profits, having assigned all rights to Fauna. 'While my case wasn't a success, I do feel it helped other actors coming through,' Bonner tells me. 'Knowledge is power.' TV historian Andrew Mercado says up until the 1980s, only a few actors 'had the foresight to demand a contract that would pay them for repeats past the initial two runs … they didn't think of VHS and box sets, let alone streaming.' In 2017, Rowena Wallace, once one of the highest-paid actors in the country for her role as 'Pat the rat' in the '80s soap Sons and Daughters, revealed on national TV that she was so poor she couldn't feed herself after paying for her pet's dog food. Her co-star, the late Leila Hayes, waged a lengthy but unsuccessful battle with the show's producer, the late multimillionaire media mogul Reg Grundy, over residuals. Loading In 2013, Colette Mann, who played inmate Doreen in Grundy's Prisoner and was also the actors' union rep on set, revealed she went to court to get a residuals deal for the cast, which only came into effect after Prisoner had ended; it resulted in modest payments. But Val Lehman, who played Bea Smith and was one of the show's top stars, negotiated her own contract that included ongoing royalties, including DVD sales. Like Gai Waterhouse's Presta, Queen Bea's life of crime is still reaping dividends, it seems.
Sydney Morning Herald
6 days ago
- Entertainment
- Sydney Morning Herald
A right royalty battle: Why some actors get repeatedly shafted
Training thoroughbreds proved a lucrative vocation for Gai Waterhouse, but she'd be hard-pressed to find a pony that can deliver as enduring a return as her 1978 appearance on cult UK TV series Doctor Who. For nearly half a century, Waterhouse has received an annual royalty payment from Doctor Who 's owner, the BBC. Last month, it was $225.57. 'In another lifetime, I acted in London,' she explains. 'I'm still receiving royalties. Isn't it incredible?' At 23, she starred as an animal pelt-wearing hunter named Presta, opposite the fourth doctor, Tom Baker. Last year, the BBC estimated the show made £100 million annually in licensing, merchandising deals and broadcast sales. However, Waterhouse is a rarity; back then, 'residuals' weren't common for actors. From 1968 to 1970, Sydney actor Tony Bonner, now 81, played the dashing helicopter pilot Jerry King on Skippy, another hugely successful TV series that screened in more than 100 countries. Bonner launched an ambitious court case in 2008 for a share of royalties, suing the production company, Fauna, for $750,000 in the NSW Supreme Court. But Bonner's claim failed after Justice Ian Gzell found Bonner had been paid $140 a week in accordance with his contract and was not entitled to any further share of Skippy 's profits, having assigned all rights to Fauna. 'While my case wasn't a success, I do feel it helped other actors coming through,' Bonner tells me. 'Knowledge is power.' TV historian Andrew Mercado says up until the 1980s, only a few actors 'had the foresight to demand a contract that would pay them for repeats past the initial two runs … they didn't think of VHS and box sets, let alone streaming.' In 2017, Rowena Wallace, once one of the highest-paid actors in the country for her role as 'Pat the rat' in the '80s soap Sons and Daughters, revealed on national TV that she was so poor she couldn't feed herself after paying for her pet's dog food. Her co-star, the late Leila Hayes, waged a lengthy but unsuccessful battle with the show's producer, the late multimillionaire media mogul Reg Grundy, over residuals. Loading In 2013, Colette Mann, who played inmate Doreen in Grundy's Prisoner and was also the actors' union rep on set, revealed she went to court to get a residuals deal for the cast, which only came into effect after Prisoner had ended; it resulted in modest payments. But Val Lehman, who played Bea Smith and was one of the show's top stars, negotiated her own contract that included ongoing royalties, including DVD sales. Like Gai Waterhouse's Presta, Queen Bea's life of crime is still reaping dividends, it seems.
