Court to decide fate of Jari Wise coronial inquest

Hobart’s Supreme Court will consider whether or not to launch a coronial inquiry into the death of Jari Wise, who was hit and killed by a car driven by his girlfriend Melissa Oates.

The Supreme Court of Tasmania will consider whether or not to launch a coronial inquiry into the death of Jari Wise, who was hit and killed by a car driven by his girlfriend Melissa Oates.

Following the fatal crash Ms Oates had told police that Mr Wise had jumped out in front of her car while he was walking home from a party in Huonville.

She was sentenced to eight months in prison for dangerous driving charges, drink driving, and failing to stop after a crash, but not for the death of Mr Wise.

Mr Wise’s mother Faith Tkalac has applied for a coronial inquiry into her son’s death, and whether he really did jump out in front of Ms Oates’ car.

On Friday her lawyer Fabiano Cangelosi put forward the case for a coronial inquiry at an applications hearing at the Supreme Court in Hobart in front of Justice Michael Brett.

Her lawyer Fabiano Cangelosi told the court Ms Oates had made a number of “inconsistent” statements following the fatal crash which warranted scrutiny.

Faith Tkalac, Jari Wise’s mother, outside the Supreme Court with Jari supporters. Picture: Kenji Sato

“For instance the words she ‘hoped it was not Jari’, that she thought something might have been ‘thrown and hit the car’ are quite different from the claim that Jari jumped in front.”

“The only direct evidence that Mr Wise jumped in front of the car comes from Ms Oates, yet in the minutes after the collision with Mr Wise she says ‘I think I’ve hit something or someone, and I hope it’s not Jari’.”

Mr Cangelosi told the court a coronial inquest may shed light on new details, such as why Ms Oates drove down the road past Mr Wise and then U-turned back in the other direction.

Additionally, Mr Cangelosi submitted it was also “not impossible” that Ms Oates’ memory might have been influenced by comments from friends.

He said following the crash two of them said Mr Wise had previously stepped out in front of cars on separate occasions.

One of them said they were a passenger during one such incident and saw it happen.

“It is unclear the extent to which it may be a late construction; for example the notion that Mr Wise had a tendency to jump in front of cars, it may cause a witness surmising … there was a jumping in front of cars,” Mr Cangelosi said.

Lawyer for the Attorney-General Gretel Chen told the Supreme Court the applicant had presented “no evidence” that the initial evidence put before the courts were inadequate or insufficient.

Jari Wise was killed at Huonville on February 29.

Additionally, Ms Chen told the court the applicant provided no evidence that a coronial inquiry was likely to uncover new, significant, or relevant evidence.

She told the court that all the evidence that had been put before the coroner had also been put before the Supreme Court.

“It is the Attorney-General’s submission that the court cannot be satisfied that the coronial inquiry is necessary or desirable in the interests of justice,” Ms Chen said.

“Speculation and suggestion are no substitute for evidence. There is no evidence that the evidence before the coroner is deficient in any way.”

Mr Cangelosi told the court they were not interested in contradicting the court’s findings or proving Ms Oates’ guilt, but to shed light on what happened to Mr Wise on that night.

“This is not about criminal punishment, this is about arriving at the truth, that is what a coronial procedure is to determine,” Mr Cangelosi said.

“It is in the public interest for it to be known whether or not this man died as a result of jumping in front of a car or not.

“He has left behind two children who have no answer, will never have an answer in response to that question, and we say that’s an important question.”

Justice Michael Brett said he would adjourn this case for consideration.

In the meantime, he asked both sides to send in written submissions within the next 14 days.

[e-mail]