Tasmania's Attorney-General has ordered an inquest be held into the death of 26-year-old Jari Wise, in an extraordinary intervention just hours after the Supreme Court ruled that one was not necessary.
Mr Wise was killed three years ago when a car driven by his former partner Melissa Oates struck him late at night on a road near Huonville.
So, what happened the night Jari Wise died?
The lead up
When Ms Oates was sentenced in April 22, 2021 the Supreme Court laid out facts about Mr Wise's death.
Just after 1:10am on February 29, 2020, the car Ms Oates was driving struck her partner near Huonville High School.
What's not in dispute is that she was driving between 110 and 120 kilometres per hour in a 50kph zone and was three times the blood-alcohol limit.
She also told police she was not wearing her glasses — required as a condition of her driver's licence.
It was the middle of the night on a poorly-lit road on the edge of town.
The court was told they had argued earlier in the night, and both were heavily intoxicated after being at a friend's house.
Mr Wise had left to walk home, walking along several streets before making it to Wilmot Road.
Ms Oates left at the same time, driving to get some food from a service station. She was seen there on CCTV at 1am.
She then drove to Wilmot Road. Her phone had a number of missed calls and texts from Mr Wise – the last one at 1:10am.
Ms Oates headed out of town towards Ranelagh, then turned back around to come back to Huonville.
The Supreme Court found Mr Wise was on Wilmot Road at the time, dressed in dark clothing, and evidence was heard that he had jumped in front of Ms Oates's car multiple times in the past.
On April 22, 2021 Ms Oates was ultimately sentenced, on the basis that she was not legally responsible for Mr Wise's death.
The three charges she pleaded guilty to were driving offences.
"… if the deceased jumped out in front of your vehicle it could not be said that your manner of driving was a cause of death," Justice Gregory Geason wrote in his sentencing.
She was jailed for 14 months, with six months suspended, and lost her license for three years with a $2,000 fine.
But throughout the investigation and court proceeding, Mr Wise's family has wanted more answers.
They applied for an inquest, and, when it was rejected on Thursday, Attorney-General Elise Archer intervened to make it happen.
Inquest rejected
In a statement to the Supreme Court, a witness described hearing a revving sound as the car drove away, straight after the crash.
The court heard Ms Oates went back to the friend's house, and they returned to the scene together.
Police received a call at 1:23am, and when they arrived, Ms Oates was there.
Police body-cam records her as saying: "He just jumped out in front of me, I didn't mean to do this … why did you jump out in front of me?"
The court heard she was remorseful.
Police later carried out visibility testing on that section of road at night. They found that, even at 60kph, it was difficult to see a pedestrian.
The case included evidence from multiple witnesses saying Mr Wise had stepped, or jumped, in front of a car during an argument in the past.
In his decision to reject an inquest, Justice Brett said the investigation was adequate.
"The police investigation was extremely thorough," he wrote.
The family's case
The suggestion that Mr Wise put himself in the way of the car is central to his mother, Faith Tkalac, pushing for an inquest.
In her application to the court, she disputed several statements provided by individuals during the investigation.
Justice Brett, in his decision, quotes claims made by Ms Tkalac in which she said there were other witnesses who could provide evidence of alleged family violence committed by Ms Oates.
"The witnesses are not identified, and no detail is provided concerning those allegations," Justice Brett writes.
Ms Tkalac also provided evidence from pathologist Professor Anthony Thomas who questioned the position of Mr Wise on the road at the time of the crash.
In his ruling, Justice Brett said the police case generally summarised his position as walking towards the car, and in the middle of the lane at the time of the crash.
Professor Thomas's evidence centres on the car damage being on the left-hand side, but Mr Wise's injuries being more prominent on the right side of his body.
His opinion is that Mr Wise was more likely to be closer to the gravel verge, turning towards his left at a 45-degree angle to the oncoming vehicle.
Justice Brett said the police did not have a degree of certainty about Mr Wise's position, but that "there is probably little importance in this discrepancy".
He found that no new evidence had been put forward, to convince the court to grant an inquest.
"…an inquest will not place the coroner in any better position to make the findings in question, than that which arises from the police investigation. I am not satisfied that an inquest is necessary or desirable in the interests of justice," Justice Brett wrote.
Attorney-General intervenes
Police could not, in the end, say with certainty whether Mr Wise moved into the path of Ms Oates's vehicle.
It's this lack of certainty that could be central during the inquest.
Ms Tkalac was devastated when the court refused her application, but a phone call from the Attorney-General turned this around.
During the application, Ms Archer had made a submission arguing against an inquest.
But she had changed her mind.
The Justice Department confirmed that, to its knowledge, an Attorney-General has not intervened in this way before in Tasmania.
Ms Tkalac said she was relieved.
"It's been a long hard fight."
The timing of the inquest is yet to be determined.
