STATE OF TASMANIA v JASMIN TRINGROVE 8 APRIL 2026
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE SHANAHAN CJ
Jasmin Tringrove you have been convicted on your own plea of one count of dangerous driving contrary to s 172A of the Criminal Code 1924 (“Code”).
Upon sentencing submissions I amended the particulars on the indictment to delete paragraph (b) and the nature of your offending to which you have pleaded guilty is described in the following terms, that is, that on or about 14 July 2023 at Rokeby in Tasmania, you drove a grey Mazda utility, registration number D28LN, on public streets at a speed and/or in a manner that was dangerous to the public having regard to all the circumstances of the case, including the nature, condition and use of the streets and the amount of traffic which actually was at the time or which might reasonably be expected to be on the streets by:
a Driving at excessive speed;
…
c Driving dangerously close behind another vehicle;
d Driving into another vehicle;
e Driving on the incorrect side of the road;
f Driving through a red light.
You were born on 4 November 2000, and at the material time you were subject to an Interim Family Violence Order which was served on you on 1 February 2023. Conditions of that Order included that you not stalk Elizabeth Scott, nor directly or indirectly threaten, abuse or assault Elizabeth Scott and not be within 50 metres of, or contact Elizabeth Scott.
At approximately 9.30am, on Friday 14 July 2023, Elizabeth Scott spoke to police about issues she had been having with you and the Interim Family Violence Order that was in place.
At approximately 11.00am, Ms Scott, her son Fletcher, Zoe Matthews and Zoe Matthew’s young child got into Ms Scott’s white Nissan Patrol, registration number J12YQ. Ms Scott drove to McDonalds, Howrah Point, situated in the Glebe Hill shopping centre car park.
Ms Scott was about to move her car into the drive-through section at McDonalds when she saw you driving your Mazda utility, registration number D28LN into the carpark. You were pointing at Ms Scott.
Ms Scott panicked and turned away from the McDonalds drive-through section to avoid you, Whilst she was doing this, she saw you drive up and over the garden bed lane dividers in the carpark. Ms Scott drove to the exit of the car park at Commerce Drive.
You followed her at an excessive speed. A witness nearby heard tyres screeching and saw a white Nissan Patrol wagon exiting the carpark and entering the roundabout on Commerce Drive. At this time the witness also saw a grey coloured Mazda, registration number D28LN being driven erratically and too fast for the carpark.
Ms Scott approached the roundabout and you deliberately collided with her vehicle. The front right bulbar of your vehicle collided with the rear left wheel arch area of Ms Scott’s vehicle, causing it to shift slightly on the road. Witnesses nearby heard a loud noise described as a “crunch” at this time and tyres screeching. Police were called.
Ms Scott travelled to a further roundabout on Commerce Drive and you followed in close proximity to her vehicle. Both vehicles travelled at speed and at times on the wrong side of the road.
Ms Scott drove to Mockridge Road and then towards Rokeby Road. You continued to chase Ms Scott up onto Rokeby Road. Ms Scott turned left onto Rokeby Road, in the direction of Oakdowns. As you approached Rokeby Road, Ms Scott observed the traffic lights turn red however, due to you chasing her, she drove through the red light turning towards Rokeby.
You chased Ms Scott through the red light. As you approached a merge lane, you drove along the left side of Ms Scott’s car and drove your car into Ms Scott’s car. This caused her to mount the traffic island/divider and caused her to collide with the wire barriers, resulting in damage to her vehicle.
At the time, a witness was stopped at the top of Pass Road in a single lane. He saw two cars “fly past” him and it made him shudder. The two cars that passed him travelled on the incorrect side of the road as they drove past.
Ms Scott drove a further 200m and stopped as she was scared and panicking. You stopped next to her driver’s side and yelled and screamed at her.
Police attended Rokeby Road, east of the Pass Road intersection heading towards Lauderdale. Police observed markings on the road and onto the traffic island medium strip and the wire barrier, as well as vehicle debris on the median strip.
Police observed the complainant’s vehicle, a white Nissan Patrol, registration number J12YQ, parked on the traffic island/median strip facing east on Rokeby Road, Rokeby. Police observed substantial damage to the front passenger side of the bull bar as well as to the driver’s side rear quarter and the passenger side rear door.
Police also attended 344 South Arm Road Lauderdale, where your vehicle was parked in a pull off area. Police observed substantial damage to the driver’s side of your vehicle. The bull bar on that vehicle had been partially torn away from the body of the vehicle. Police further observed paint on the driver’s side of the bull bar.
You were driven to the Bellerive Police Station and participated in an electronically recorded interview with police. Under caution you stated:
- Elizabeth is your fiancé. You had been together for two years at that time;
- You said “she hit my car first because she seen me coming to Glebe Hill. Saw me and I pointed at her. She put her foot into it and smiled at me cause it’s my car. She smashed into my car and kept going”;
- You agreed that you intentionally collided with Ms Scott’s car as Ms Scott had collided with your car first;
- Your car made impact with Ms Scott’s right hand side front passenger door;
- Your intention was just to get her to stop because “she was driving like a feral”;
- You said “it was not to harm anyone, to hurt anyone, to damage anything“;
- You said Ms Scott and Zoe Matthews were laughing the whole time it was going on. Halle Matthews was also in the
- You were at McDonalds getting some lunch. It was a coincidence that you saw the
- You did not want to actually collide with her. You wanted to get real close to her and you slammed your brakes on and your car collided with Ms Scott’s car. This happened on the
- You agreed this was a breach of the Family Violence Order conditions and that it constituted dangerous
Police obtained CCTV recorded footage from four areas of the Glebe Hill carpark, including one recording which showed part of a roundabout. The footage captured a white vehicle drive around the carpark and past McDonalds. A silver car followed after it at speed and crossed through a roundabout.
At the time of the incident, the parking lot at Glebe Hill was moderately busy. The pedestrian crossing at the Glebe Hill carpark is generally a busy crossing, however witnesses did not observe any pedestrians on it at the time you drove through it.
In relation to previous convictions, the State noted that on 21 March 2023 you were re-sentenced for common assault, and on the same date you were also sentenced for another count of common assault, injuring property and breaches of an interim family violence order. You pleaded guilty to two counts of common assault in respect of Ms Scott on 17 September 2022.
Subsequent to this offending you were convicted of several offences for breaching a family violence order which resulted in you being declared a “serial family violence perpetrator”. Also subsequently you were convicted of driving a motor vehicle whilst a prescribed illicit drug was present in your blood. You were sentenced to imprisonment for four months.
There are no victim impact statements. I can infer the terror of those in the vehicle that you were chasing. I find it hard to accept that the adults and children in the other car were laughing during the extremely dangerous driving that you engaged in. The complainant and her passengers were essentially ambushed by you in the MacDonald’s car park. Equally, the users of the car park and those using the roads at the time this occurred were all put at significant risk by your conduct.
I accept the submission that it is an aggravating factor that this occurred in the context of breach of an interim family violence order. Whilst it was a short period of driving it was highly dangerous risky behaviour that put many others at risk. I understand at least one road user had to take evasive action.
Obviously the nature of your driving in the circumstances warrants denunciation and the Court will have to carefully consider what general and specific deterrence requires.
I was told that it was an agreed position that you have 81 days in custody which are unaccounted for, and can be deployed in respect of any sentence the Court imposes for this offending.
In mitigation your counsel submitted that the time you have spent in custody has had a significant deterrent effect on you, and that your behaviour has demonstrably changed since your release in June 2025. It was put that there has been no repetition of any relevant behaviour by you since that time.
Since your release you have regained employment at Inghams, where you work full time. I received two letters from Ms Michelle Earley, Operations Manager for Ingham’s Enterprises both dated 12 February 2026. Those letters confirmed that you are employed as a permanent process worker, that you are a valued member of the team and someone who Ms Earley hopes will remain a member of the team into the future. You are employed full time, being some 40 hours per week.
I was told that you have sought to address your mental health by engagement earlier this year with a practitioner from “Headspace”, and that you have received two referrals to support services to provide you with support. Those referrals include “Wellways Recovery Program” and the “Baptcare Horizons Program”. The intention is to address the underlying causes of your offending. I received a letter from Ms Kat Le from Headspace confirming those referrals.
I was urged to avoid a sentencing disposition that required you to serve an immediate term of imprisonment.
I was told that you are now 25 years old. You grew up in the care of your parents in Hobart and that your early childhood was relatively uneventful. It was submitted that in your early teenage years you experienced sexual abuse perpetrated by your father. After that experience you were diagnosed with borderline personality disorder and ADHD and were admitted to the Royal Hobart Hospital’s mental health inpatient ward on a number of occasions.
I understand that you had a strong relationship with your mother until her death by suicide when you were 18 years of age. You used alcohol as a prop during this period and continue to struggle in that regard. It was submitted that your mother’s death was a catalyst for your offending. It was put that these were circumstances in which you began your relationship with the complainant who also has trauma in her background.
I was told that when your relationship with the complainant commenced you were living in a house you inherited from your mother and working full time, and the complainant and her three year old son from a previous relationship moved in with you. I understand that you supported all three of you at that time, and that following sale of the house you made a number of large purchases including both of the vehicles involved in this offending.
Your counsel confirmed that at the material time you had received information that the complainant had spoken to police regarding her relationship with you and that you just wanted to speak to the complainant. Of course there was an order in place precluding that contact and you pursued her in a reckless and dangerous manner. It was conceded that at the time you were angry with the complainant, indeed that much may be readily inferred from the circumstances of your driving. There was substantial force in the deliberate collisions for which you were responsible.
I was taken to the passage in the judgement of Porter AJ Banks v Tasmania [2019] TASCCA 1 and the list of factors to be considered at [44]. I note that passage appears under the heading “Specific considerations in this case”. There are many factors that can be relevant to an assessment of dangerous driving and I accept that they include but are not limited to the factors set out in this passage. It is the quality of the relevant driving that is the essential factor not the number of indicia that might be engaged in particular circumstances, although reference to such indicia can be useful.
I do not accept that your driving was at the very lower end of the scale for dangerous driving. The damage caused by the collision is only one aspect of the criminality involved and that involved significant force. The risks to the drivers of the vehicles, other road users and pedestrians was high, a driver had to take evasive action. I do accept that the driving was for a distance of a little over 1 kilometre but it had elements of persistence nevertheless.
Your counsel submitted that your pattern of behaviour in breaching court orders that was evident during that period has now resolved due to your period in custody.
You cooperated with police on arrest to some extent. However aspects of the account you gave are no longer relied upon, in particular how the events unfolded on the day and who was primarily responsible for initiating those events.
You have pleaded guilty to the charge and are entitled to the benefit of that plea and I accept it as evidence of your remorse and taking responsibility for your actions.
I am told that you have previously struggled with cannabis and methamphetamine.
You remain a young person and rehabilitation is a sentencing consideration.
The case of State of Tasmania v Dylan Tubb was brought to my attention, in particular the remarks of Estcourt J in his comments on passing sentence dated 6 November 2025 at the antepenultimate paragraph to the effect “Dangerous driving is no longer a summary offence – it is a crime and is regarded as a serious crime. It almost always attracts a term of imprisonment”.
Jasmin Tringrove, you are convicted on the single count of dangerous driving on the indictment. Your driving was extremely dangerous and had some violent elements to it, it certainly created significant risk to those in the complainant’s car and to the pedestrians and road users affected. Your offending was committed against the background of a troubled relationship, protective orders and a history of family violence. It could so easily have ended in tragedy.
I impose one sentence. I sentence you to 15 months’ imprisonment of which you have served 81 days. I suspend the balance of that term, which in my calculation is 11 months and 10 days, for a period of 18 months on the condition that you commit no offence punishable by imprisonment. In respect of that part of the term you are to serve I do not make you eligible for parole.
I make the order suspending the balance of your sentence subject to the supervision of a probation officer under s 24(2) of the Sentencing Act in which regard I make the following community corrections order. I make a community corrections order under s 42AN of the Sentencing Act to commence from today, and operate for a period 12 months. That order will include all the core conditions under s 42AO of the Sentencing Act and the following conditions will also apply:
- You must, during the operational period of the order, submit to the supervision of a probation officer as required by the probation officer;
- You must, during the operation period of this order, maintain in operating condition an active mobile phone service, provide the contact details to Community Corrections and be accessible for contact through this device at all times;
- You must not, during the operational period of the order, take any illicit or prohibited substances. Illicit and prohibited substances include:
- any controlled drug as defined by the Misuse of Drugs Act 2001;
- any medication containing an opiate, benzodiazepine, bupropion, hydrochloride or pseudoephedrine, unless you provide written evidence from your medical professional that you have been prescribed the relevant medication;
- You must not, during the operational period of the order, consume alcohol, and you must if directed to do so by a police officer or community corrections officer, submit to a breath test, urine test or other test for the presence of alcohol;
- You must, during the operational period of the order, submit to medical, psychological or psychiatric assessment or treatment as directed by a probation officer, and
- If directed by a probation officer, you must attend, participate in, and complete the EQUIPS Addiction Program as directed.
You must attend the Community Corrections office at Hobart for induction into this order. You must attend that service for induction during business hours and no later than 10:00 am on the first business day following your release.
The effect of the order under s 24(2) of the Sentencing Act is that the community corrections order works as a condition upon which the suspension of your sentence rests.
If you breach those conditions you may be brought back to the Court for re-sentencing and required to serve the balance of the term of imprisonment imposed today. By making those orders under s 24(2) I further acknowledge the seriousness of your offending.