Reality TV star Matt Wright's trial dates locked in after Chris Wilson's death
Matt Wright, also known as the Outback Wrangler, faces three counts of attempting to pervert the course of justice following a helicopter crash in February 2022 that killed his friend and co-star Chris 'Willow' Wilson.
The trial is set to begin in the Northern Territory with the selection of the jury on July 30.
Mr Wright was the host of Outback Wrangler, a reality series that saw him tracking down Australian wildlife in rural Australia.
He also hosted the Netflix show Wild Croc Territory in 2022.
Mr Wilson is alleged to have been suspended from the chopper on a crocodile egg collecting mission over the King River in Arnhem Land, when the helicopter crashed into the paperbark swamp, killing the 34-year-old father and critically injuring his 28-year-old pilot, Sebastian Robinson.
It has been alleged Mr Wright was not properly following the maintenance rules for his helicopters, and attempted to cover this up in the wake of the crash.
Mr Wright has strenuously denied all wrongdoing.
The trial's start date has faced many delays, most recently in mid-June when Justice Alan Blow accepted Mr Wright's defence barrister Luke Officer's request to push the July 7 start date back to July 28, resulting in the departure of Crown prosecutor James Moore from the case due to a double booking.
During a pre-trial hearing in Darwin Supreme Court on Tuesday, it was revealed neither the defence nor the prosecution were prepared for that date.
'Both of us agree that we are simply not ready to start on Monday,' defence barrister David Edwardson KC said.
Crown prosecutor Jason Gullaci SC endorsed the delay, leading Justice Blow to set a new start date for Wednesday, July 30.
The court was told there would be a pre-trial hearing on Monday, then the jury would be selected on Wednesday, with opening arguments beginning on Thursday.
Mr Gullaci indicated one witness would be Mr Robinson, who was also seriously injured in the crash and allegedly involved in the cover-up.
'I think it is likely there will be at least one or two witnesses that will, to use the phrase 'set the scene', before we call upon (Mr Robinson),' he said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Advertiser
29 minutes ago
- The Advertiser
Women greenlit to sue Qatar Airways over strip searches
Several Australian women allegedly forced to submit to invasive strip searches at Doha's Hamad airport have been given the go ahead to sue Qatar Airways after a "long and stressful struggle". The five women, who cannot be legally named, were among hundreds of women alleged to have been forcibly removed from aircraft at Doha on October 2, 2020 as officials searched for the mother of a newborn found in a bathroom at the terminal. Taken off planes by armed guards, many allege they were forced to conduct non-consensual gynaecological or intimate physical examinations. One passenger was forced to undergo a strip search holding her five-month old son, the lawsuit claims. Another, who is elderly and legally blind, was directed out of the aircraft but was not subject to a search. The women, three of whom were allegedly subjected to invasive searches, launched legal action against Qatar Airways, the airport operator and the government-owned Qatar Civil Aviation Authority. After an initial ruling barred them from pursuing the airline and the QCAA, the Federal Court ruled on Thursday that the suit against Qatar Airways and the airport operator could continue. The women's lawyer Damian Sturzaker said his clients were relieved with their win after "a very long and stressful struggle to bring this to court". "Unfortunately the case against the state of Qatar was unsuccessful, however this has always been an issue against the airline," he said outside court. "We've now got an opportunity to have a full hearing with all of (the women's) evidence coming out and, in those circumstances, we're very very pleased with the outcome today." The women are seeking compensation for mental stress, for alleged assault and for the alleged false imprisonment during the airport incident nearly five years ago. They claim the airline and the airport operator were negligent and breached their duty of care to passengers who were forced off the plane and subjected to searches. A judge previously dismissed the women's claims against Qatar Airways as having no prospect of success because the searches didn't occur when disembarking or embarking the plane. However, the Full Court determined on Thursday there was "no sufficiently high degree of certainty" that was the case and ruled it is an issue that should be decided at trial. Chief Justice Debra Mortimer, Justice Angus Stewart, Justice Stephen Stellios upheld the primary ruling that the women could not sue the QCAA because it has immunity as an entity of a foreign state. Qatar Airways was ordered to pay the legal bill accrued by the women during the appeal. The court battle between the two parties is not expected to be heard this year. Outside court, Mr Sturzaker said he was confident in his steadfast clients' case against the airline and the airport operator. "They always would have liked to see a resolution to the matter but if that can't be achieved then of course the matter will go to hearing," he said. Lifeline 13 11 14 beyondblue 1300 22 4636 Several Australian women allegedly forced to submit to invasive strip searches at Doha's Hamad airport have been given the go ahead to sue Qatar Airways after a "long and stressful struggle". The five women, who cannot be legally named, were among hundreds of women alleged to have been forcibly removed from aircraft at Doha on October 2, 2020 as officials searched for the mother of a newborn found in a bathroom at the terminal. Taken off planes by armed guards, many allege they were forced to conduct non-consensual gynaecological or intimate physical examinations. One passenger was forced to undergo a strip search holding her five-month old son, the lawsuit claims. Another, who is elderly and legally blind, was directed out of the aircraft but was not subject to a search. The women, three of whom were allegedly subjected to invasive searches, launched legal action against Qatar Airways, the airport operator and the government-owned Qatar Civil Aviation Authority. After an initial ruling barred them from pursuing the airline and the QCAA, the Federal Court ruled on Thursday that the suit against Qatar Airways and the airport operator could continue. The women's lawyer Damian Sturzaker said his clients were relieved with their win after "a very long and stressful struggle to bring this to court". "Unfortunately the case against the state of Qatar was unsuccessful, however this has always been an issue against the airline," he said outside court. "We've now got an opportunity to have a full hearing with all of (the women's) evidence coming out and, in those circumstances, we're very very pleased with the outcome today." The women are seeking compensation for mental stress, for alleged assault and for the alleged false imprisonment during the airport incident nearly five years ago. They claim the airline and the airport operator were negligent and breached their duty of care to passengers who were forced off the plane and subjected to searches. A judge previously dismissed the women's claims against Qatar Airways as having no prospect of success because the searches didn't occur when disembarking or embarking the plane. However, the Full Court determined on Thursday there was "no sufficiently high degree of certainty" that was the case and ruled it is an issue that should be decided at trial. Chief Justice Debra Mortimer, Justice Angus Stewart, Justice Stephen Stellios upheld the primary ruling that the women could not sue the QCAA because it has immunity as an entity of a foreign state. Qatar Airways was ordered to pay the legal bill accrued by the women during the appeal. The court battle between the two parties is not expected to be heard this year. Outside court, Mr Sturzaker said he was confident in his steadfast clients' case against the airline and the airport operator. "They always would have liked to see a resolution to the matter but if that can't be achieved then of course the matter will go to hearing," he said. Lifeline 13 11 14 beyondblue 1300 22 4636 Several Australian women allegedly forced to submit to invasive strip searches at Doha's Hamad airport have been given the go ahead to sue Qatar Airways after a "long and stressful struggle". The five women, who cannot be legally named, were among hundreds of women alleged to have been forcibly removed from aircraft at Doha on October 2, 2020 as officials searched for the mother of a newborn found in a bathroom at the terminal. Taken off planes by armed guards, many allege they were forced to conduct non-consensual gynaecological or intimate physical examinations. One passenger was forced to undergo a strip search holding her five-month old son, the lawsuit claims. Another, who is elderly and legally blind, was directed out of the aircraft but was not subject to a search. The women, three of whom were allegedly subjected to invasive searches, launched legal action against Qatar Airways, the airport operator and the government-owned Qatar Civil Aviation Authority. After an initial ruling barred them from pursuing the airline and the QCAA, the Federal Court ruled on Thursday that the suit against Qatar Airways and the airport operator could continue. The women's lawyer Damian Sturzaker said his clients were relieved with their win after "a very long and stressful struggle to bring this to court". "Unfortunately the case against the state of Qatar was unsuccessful, however this has always been an issue against the airline," he said outside court. "We've now got an opportunity to have a full hearing with all of (the women's) evidence coming out and, in those circumstances, we're very very pleased with the outcome today." The women are seeking compensation for mental stress, for alleged assault and for the alleged false imprisonment during the airport incident nearly five years ago. They claim the airline and the airport operator were negligent and breached their duty of care to passengers who were forced off the plane and subjected to searches. A judge previously dismissed the women's claims against Qatar Airways as having no prospect of success because the searches didn't occur when disembarking or embarking the plane. However, the Full Court determined on Thursday there was "no sufficiently high degree of certainty" that was the case and ruled it is an issue that should be decided at trial. Chief Justice Debra Mortimer, Justice Angus Stewart, Justice Stephen Stellios upheld the primary ruling that the women could not sue the QCAA because it has immunity as an entity of a foreign state. Qatar Airways was ordered to pay the legal bill accrued by the women during the appeal. The court battle between the two parties is not expected to be heard this year. Outside court, Mr Sturzaker said he was confident in his steadfast clients' case against the airline and the airport operator. "They always would have liked to see a resolution to the matter but if that can't be achieved then of course the matter will go to hearing," he said. Lifeline 13 11 14 beyondblue 1300 22 4636 Several Australian women allegedly forced to submit to invasive strip searches at Doha's Hamad airport have been given the go ahead to sue Qatar Airways after a "long and stressful struggle". The five women, who cannot be legally named, were among hundreds of women alleged to have been forcibly removed from aircraft at Doha on October 2, 2020 as officials searched for the mother of a newborn found in a bathroom at the terminal. Taken off planes by armed guards, many allege they were forced to conduct non-consensual gynaecological or intimate physical examinations. One passenger was forced to undergo a strip search holding her five-month old son, the lawsuit claims. Another, who is elderly and legally blind, was directed out of the aircraft but was not subject to a search. The women, three of whom were allegedly subjected to invasive searches, launched legal action against Qatar Airways, the airport operator and the government-owned Qatar Civil Aviation Authority. After an initial ruling barred them from pursuing the airline and the QCAA, the Federal Court ruled on Thursday that the suit against Qatar Airways and the airport operator could continue. The women's lawyer Damian Sturzaker said his clients were relieved with their win after "a very long and stressful struggle to bring this to court". "Unfortunately the case against the state of Qatar was unsuccessful, however this has always been an issue against the airline," he said outside court. "We've now got an opportunity to have a full hearing with all of (the women's) evidence coming out and, in those circumstances, we're very very pleased with the outcome today." The women are seeking compensation for mental stress, for alleged assault and for the alleged false imprisonment during the airport incident nearly five years ago. They claim the airline and the airport operator were negligent and breached their duty of care to passengers who were forced off the plane and subjected to searches. A judge previously dismissed the women's claims against Qatar Airways as having no prospect of success because the searches didn't occur when disembarking or embarking the plane. However, the Full Court determined on Thursday there was "no sufficiently high degree of certainty" that was the case and ruled it is an issue that should be decided at trial. Chief Justice Debra Mortimer, Justice Angus Stewart, Justice Stephen Stellios upheld the primary ruling that the women could not sue the QCAA because it has immunity as an entity of a foreign state. Qatar Airways was ordered to pay the legal bill accrued by the women during the appeal. The court battle between the two parties is not expected to be heard this year. Outside court, Mr Sturzaker said he was confident in his steadfast clients' case against the airline and the airport operator. "They always would have liked to see a resolution to the matter but if that can't be achieved then of course the matter will go to hearing," he said. Lifeline 13 11 14 beyondblue 1300 22 4636
ABC News
29 minutes ago
- ABC News
Orange Local Aboriginal Land Council cleared of wrongdoing but will review its procedures
An Aboriginal Land Council in central New South Wales says an independent review has cleared it of any wrongdoing, but it has vowed to implement a raft of recommendations to improve transparency. Orange Local Aboriginal Land Council (OLALC) ordered the review after allegations of misconduct were raised by members, which included nepotism and financial mismanagement. In April, more than 40 people signed a petition of no confidence in executive staff and called for an investigation. In response, the OLALC board ordered a review by commercial lawyer Reay McGuiness. While the review has not yet been made public, in a summary given to council members and seen by the ABC, it has recommended a raft of changes the organisation could make. The review summary said 35 members of OLALC were interviewed during the investigation, with thousands of pages of documents provided. "The board has complied with its statutory obligations of disclosure to members … and I [Reay McGuiness] have seen no evidence that employees have been appointed to positions not on merit but because of family connections," the summary stated. OLALC member Jason French said he and other members had no confidence in the review. At the end of May, Mr French lodged an objection to the proposed review process on behalf of a cohort of OLALC members. The objection letter, sent to OLALC, peak body NSW Aboriginal Land Council, and the registrar who regulates the organisation, described concerns about conflicts of interest and cultural inappropriateness within the review's process. "We had a number of members sign a petition saying that they felt there was a lack of transparency in the process of selecting [the reviewer]," Mr French said. Mr French said members did not receive a response. "The members are speaking out, and they are basically disregarding it," he said. Mr French said it should have been the regulator, the registrar, the NSW Aboriginal Land Council, or a forensic auditor appointed to lead the review. "It was a pointless review. If they really wanted [to properly review the OLALC], they would have appointed someone [independent]," he said. Mr McGuiness and OLALC chair Jamie Newman both declined to be interviewed by the ABC. Mr Newman issued a statement that said the land council would implement all the review recommendations. "Just meeting our statutory obligations is not good enough … we want to continually improve … implementing all the recommendations will help us do that," he said. Mr Newman said the review was essential for self-determination and transparency. "Self-determination isn't just about rights, but also responsibilities and accountability," he said. Mr Newman urged members to accept the review's findings and get behind the purpose of the land council. "Our land council plays a vital role in supporting the Aboriginal people of Orange, promoting economic development, and protecting culture," he said. The summary of the review advised OLALC to improve its conflict resolution processes and the way it engages with its members: "The board does not presently have suitable processes to ensure that members have adequate engagement, participation and consultation on key issues." "The board should seek to have the member meetings either chaired or facilitated by an independent person with no existing connection to the OLALC and the Orange Aboriginal Community." The review summary also suggested the registrar or NSW Aboriginal Land Council could be asked to appoint a conciliator to ensure members' meetings are civil and constructive.
News.com.au
an hour ago
- News.com.au
Taser cop Kristian White to learn fate after prosecutors' push for harsher sentence over Clare Nowland's manslaughter
A policeman who avoided jail after fatally tasering a nursing home resident could be handed a harsher sentence as soon as next week. Senior Constable Kristian White, now 35, was found guilty of manslaughter of 95-year-old Clare Nowland after he was called to Yallambee Lodge nursing home in Cooma in the state's south on May 17, 2023. White was sentenced to a two-year community order and 425 hours of community service, but the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions is appealing the sentence. The judgment will be given on July 30. Mrs Nowland was described as being a 'very aggressive' resident who was holding two knives by a nurse, but was holding only one knife and a penlight when White found her sitting in an office after 5am. He repeatedly told her to drop the blade during a confrontation that lasted less than three minutes. When she failed to drop it, White said 'bugger it' before tasering her: Ms Nowland died in hospital days later. White was found guilty of Mrs Nowland's manslaughter in November last year following a NSW Supreme Court trial. White is expected to learn whether prosecutors were successful in their bid to impose a harsher sentence on him, with the matter listed for judgment in the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal (CCA). Cop didn't give Ms Nowland 'any real chance' The DPP's case hinges on four grounds of appeal, including the sentencing judge made several errors by assuming both parties agreed White honestly believed his conduct was necessary, in his assessment of objective seriousness, and in finding that general deterrence had 'little or no role' or only a 'minor' role to play in White's sentence. The sentence is 'manifestly inadequate', the final ground claims. Crown Prosecutor Sally Dowling SC last month argued White did not give Ms Nowland – clearly vulnerable and disoriented – any 'real chance to avoid being tasered'. Footage of the fatal incident made it clear Ms Nowland didn't understand or hear White's instructions, Ms Dowling told a CCA hearing. 'The respondent did not give her any real chance to avoid being tasered,' Ms Dowling said. '(There were) many alternate actions that he could have and should have taken.' Ms Nowland didn't advance towards White at any point, and needed to hold onto her walker with both hands, Ms Dowling said, which all fell under the Crown's appeal of objective seriousness. She told the court it took White less than three minutes after first seeing Mrs Nowland to deploy his taser, which caused her to immediately fall and hit her head. 'She never regained consciousness after that fall, and that injury caused her death seven days later,' Ms Dowling said. White's lawyer, Troy Edwards SC, rejected the Crown's claims that Mrs Nowland posed no threat, arguing it was inconsistent with observations of the sentencing judge and witnesses. He also urged the court not to place emphasis on footage from the incident, but to rely on the accounts of witnesses who he said felt frightened as the incident unfolded.
