Landmark ruling: Jack de Belin barred from NRL return

[Super Freak]

police don't charge just on a victims say so

You want to bet on that?

 

[McHunt]

Correct decision.

Let this be a lesson to all NRL players, present and future, don't **** up.

>NRL Players
People

 

[Jason Simmons]

That's definitely controversial... and I find it hard to swallow, because it goes against the fundamental "innocent until proven guilty" principle enshrined in the Australian common law, turning it into a "guilty until proven innocent" punishment.
It's also ridiculous to rule it doesn't impact his standing in the game, due to the publicity of it.
It's also very dubious whether this is or isn't restriction of trade...

I assume this could be escalated to the High Court of Australia. I know I definitely would.

Regardless whether it's the case with Bellend or not, someone innocent will end caught up in this, not to speak of the potential for abuse this brings about.

Three points. One, it is not a restriction of trade, he is being paid to do his job, ie: be an NRL footballer. He has no contractual right to play, however.

Secondly, no-one is saying he is innocent or guilty, but the court IS saying the NRL is entitled to protect it’s legitimate interests. If he is so terribly worried about media exposure affecting his criminal trial, one might think he wouldn’t have done media appearances with his lawyer outside court, or bring a very high profile court case that was unlikely to be successful at all, but never-mind... If he really is worried that it’s all the NRL’s fault, he can always ask for a Judge only trial to avoid that media exposure issue...

Thirdly, he is basing his request on a speculative ‘this might happen at some future date if this course is allowed to continue’ basis, which has always (in Australia anyway) been rightly considered a p*ss-poor legal argument. There is no legitimate evidence you can bring to prove to a court you ‘may’ lose in the future... Go and ask Rebel Wilson about it... She won on speculative grounds, then lost on appeal and then the High Court threw her appeal out...

IMHO, they would do the same with De Bellend too.
[automerge]1559047500[/automerge]

You want to bet on that?

We do, but only when forced to. Plenty of people have been convicted on the uncorroborated testimony of one person, but judges have to warn juries about the dangers of such and it requires an excellent witness.

In any case, it’s rare in my experience that there is ‘no’ other evidence to corroborate a victim. Even the crime novel favourite of an assault in a dark alley with no witnesses can often be corroborated through a variety of means.

 

[Jason Simmons]

You’d be surprised on what little evidence is needed to charge someone especially if there is one of her friends back up her story.

Do tell. How easy is it?

Another thing that makes charging someone easier is if you refuse to do a formal interview.

Not in Australia it doesn’t. It should, but it doesn’t.

Either way if he’s done it, I hope he gets time, if not and has been falsely accused I hope she is punished.

Agreed. If the allegations I have heard are true, he is in a lot of strife...
[automerge]1559047969[/automerge]

Great argument.
Do you really think a judge is going to look at the evidence and see that someone is clearly a rapist then grant them bail?

There is a presumption of bail for everyone at law, except for very specific offences (Murder and Terrorism related offences is about it).

The only time bail would be a particular issue with rape, would be if the alleged offender is already on bail for something else, or there were particular grounds for police to object to bail. Even then in De Bellin’s case, he would likely be granted it.

 

[Jason Simmons]

If her statement are found to be misleading or untrue, she can be charged with perjury. I’m guessing he has some high class lawyers on his case in which case if she is full of shit they shouldn’t have to much trouble in bringing that to light. The court also don’t want people making dodgy statements which accuse people of significant crimes. Judges especially come down hard on people that are financially motivated

Dunno what law school you went to man, but perjury is the offence of lying under oath, ie: you have to be in court, sworn in, giving evidence under oath...

There are various offences for making false complaints and false statements but they aren’t perjury.

 

[Jason Simmons]

being found not guilty is not the same as being found "innocent" ... there is a reason it is a "not guilty" verdict instead of an "innocent" verdict.

and Jacks lawyers will only have a field day if they can "prove" that she is lying. good luck on that.

sexual assault is a notoriously difficult charge to convict on. if courts allow victims to be sued for reporting this crime to police then there will be many more alleged rapists going free

In Queensland at least, you cannot be sued for making a complaint to police. There is a legislative exemption for this to not discourage people from reporting offending. I’d be astonished if NsW didn’t have something similar.

Furthermore for Jack’s matter to get to trial for him to be found not guilty, it will first have to be committed for trial. If that happens, a Magistrate will find there is prima facie evidence for the matter to proceed to trial, ie: there is some evidence of sufficient nature that ‘could’ convict the defendant of the offence, charged.

Now that is not to say that a properly constituted court ‘would’ convict, only that it would be possible on the evidence. I cannot imagine a jurisdiction where a Magistrate has found there is sufficient evidence and committed a matter for trial, allowing a victim to be sued for a false complaint...

 

[Jason Simmons]

And to throw more fuel on the fire, De Bellin has now been charged with further rape charges...

 

[Huge]

And to throw more fuel on the fire, De Bellin has now been charged with further rape charges...

New info ? Or, new memories of the evening? It's hard to see how something 'new' came along so much later. Perhaps Bellends alleged partner in crime decided to hang his mate out to dry.

 

[Jason Simmons]

New info ? Or, new memories of the evening? It's hard to see how something 'new' came along so much later. Perhaps Bellends alleged partner in crime decided to hang his mate out to dry.

It’s possible. De Belin has been charged with additional offences, but his alleged co-offender has not. That may indicate the co-offender is co-operating with authorities, it may not.

Could also be the results of forensic / medical testing / forensic computer / phone examinations have finally come back, additional witness based evidence has become available that wasn’t present before, ‘other’ investigative strategies may have gleaned further evidence, or Prosecutors may have recommended additional charges be laid based on the evidence that already exists.

Interesting developments nonetheless.

 

[Alec]

 

[broncos4life]

“If you pull over to help a woman whose car has broken down, remember not to rape her”. I fucking lost it right there lol.

 

[Porthoz]

Three points. One, it is not a restriction of trade, he is being paid to do his job, ie: be an NRL footballer. He has no contractual right to play, however.

Secondly, no-one is saying he is innocent or guilty, but the court IS saying the NRL is entitled to protect it’s legitimate interests. If he is so terribly worried about media exposure affecting his criminal trial, one might think he wouldn’t have done media appearances with his lawyer outside court, or bring a very high profile court case that was unlikely to be successful at all, but never-mind... If he really is worried that it’s all the NRL’s fault, he can always ask for a Judge only trial to avoid that media exposure issue...

Thirdly, he is basing his request on a speculative ‘this might happen at some future date if this course is allowed to continue’ basis, which has always (in Australia anyway) been rightly considered a p*ss-poor legal argument. There is no legitimate evidence you can bring to prove to a court you ‘may’ lose in the future... Go and ask Rebel Wilson about it... She won on speculative grounds, then lost on appeal and then the High Court threw her appeal out...

IMHO, they would do the same with De Bellend too.

A professional sportsman can only maintain or increase his value by playing, while not doing so definitely decreases his market value. There is a difference between the right to play and being prohibited from playing. His club already made clear they would play him if they were allowed to. Preventing that does in my opinion amount to restriction of trade.

The "no fault policy" clause is absolute bullshit. It amounts to a guilty verdict by media trial, while in my opinion no business interests should ever trump a person's presumed innocence.
If a person hasn't been denied bail, isn't in a position that could allow them to interfere with their case (police, lawyer, pollie, etc...) or put other people in danger (doctor accused of malpractice, airline pilot accused of a serious breach, etc...), they shouldn't suffer the consequences of an accusation until proven guilty.

Whether his and his lawyer's approach was the best strategy is of course up in the air, but the line about not making waves bringing a very high profile court case, is typical of making it very hard for people to argue against minor offenses and/or administrative measures in Australia without recurring to a court.
Unless you want to hire a lawyer and take time off work to fight for your rights, you should be docile, bend over and take it like a bitch.

FTR, I feel dirty about discussing this, because if all the allegations are true, I hope they lock him up, throw away the key and keep his arse nice and smoothly shaved for his prison mates...

P.S. A bit unrelated to the matter at hand, but I wish every single traffic fine was fought in court, until they were clogged up for years and years in arrears, so they would be forced to provide a proper recourse for people to appeal to...

 

[broncos4life]

A professional sportsman can only maintain or increase his value by playing, while not doing so definitely decreases his market value. There is a difference between the right to play and being prohibited from playing. His club already made clear they would play him if they were allowed to. Preventing that does in my opinion amount to restriction of trade.

The "no fault policy" clause is absolute bullshit. It amounts to a guilty verdict by media trial, while in my opinion no business interests should ever trump a person's presumed innocence.
If a person hasn't been denied bail, isn't in a position that could allow them to interfere with their case (police, lawyer, pollie, etc...) or put other people in danger (doctor accused of malpractice, airline pilot accused of a serious breach, etc...), they shouldn't suffer the consequences of an accusation until proven guilty.

Whether his and his lawyer's approach was the best strategy is of course up in the air, but the line about not making waves bringing a very high profile court case, is typical of making it very hard for people to argue against minor offenses and/or administrative measures in Australia without recurring to a court.
Unless you want to hire a lawyer and take time off work to fight for your rights, you should be docile, bend over and take it like a bitch.

FTR, I feel dirty about discussing this, because if all the allegations are true, I hope they lock him up, throw away the key and keep his arse nice and smoothly shaved for his prison mates...

P.S. A bit unrelated to the matter at hand, but I wish every single traffic fine was fought in court, until they were clogged up for years and years in arrears, so they would be forced to provide a proper recourse for people to appeal to...

Nothing to worry about there, he looks like the kind of douche that would shave his own arse.

 

[Nashy]

A professional sportsman can only maintain or increase his value by playing, while not doing so definitely decreases his market value. There is a difference between the right to play and being prohibited from playing. His club already made clear they would play him if they were allowed to. Preventing that does in my opinion amount to restriction of trade.

The "no fault policy" clause is absolute bullshit. It amounts to a guilty verdict by media trial, while in my opinion no business interests should ever trump a person's presumed innocence.
If a person hasn't been denied bail, isn't in a position that could allow them to interfere with their case (police, lawyer, pollie, etc...) or put other people in danger (doctor accused of malpractice, airline pilot accused of a serious breach, etc...), they shouldn't suffer the consequences of an accusation until proven guilty.

Whether his and his lawyer's approach was the best strategy is of course up in the air, but the line about not making waves bringing a very high profile court case, is typical of making it very hard for people to argue against minor offenses and/or administrative measures in Australia without recurring to a court.
Unless you want to hire a lawyer and take time off work to fight for your rights, you should be docile, bend over and take it like a bitch.

FTR, I feel dirty about discussing this, because if all the allegations are true, I hope they lock him up, throw away the key and keep his arse nice and smoothly shaved for his prison mates...

P.S. A bit unrelated to the matter at hand, but I wish every single traffic fine was fought in court, until they were clogged up for years and years in arrears, so they would be forced to provide a proper recourse for people to appeal to...

Traffic cops are scum. It's never going to happen while they need their little egos inflated.

In regards to JDB, it's not bullshit. It's absolutely and utterly no different to a CEO standing down while a court case is heard, where very, very serious criminal charges are laid against them. It's absolutely no different. He is still employed. He is still training. He is still being paid.

It really is that simple. It's about time these fucking cockheads realise, you bring the game into disrepute, you're fucking sitting down.


Edit: CEO doesn't work well for your argument. Lets use a printer salesman. He needs to be getting sales to increase his numbers to get promoted. You'd be hard stretched to get any company with half a brain, to send out a sale rep who's covered in the news as being charged, multiple times, with gang rape.

It's completely fair. The company shouldn't have their name dragged through the mud because of an employee.

 

[Porthoz]

Traffic cops are scum. It's never going to happen while they need their little egos inflated.

In regards to JDB, it's not bullshit. It's absolutely and utterly no different to a CEO standing down while a court case is heard, where very, very serious criminal charges are laid against them. It's absolutely no different. He is still employed. He is still training. He is still being paid.

It really is that simple. It's about time these fucking cockheads realise, you bring the game into disrepute, you're fucking sitting down.


Edit: CEO doesn't work well for your argument. Lets use a printer salesman. He needs to be getting sales to increase his numbers to get promoted. You'd be hard stretched to get any company with half a brain, to send out a sale rep who's covered in the news as being charged, multiple times, with gang rape.

It's completely fair. The company shouldn't have their name dragged through the mud because of an employee.

If the employee is found innocent, whose fault is it that the company's name was dragged through the mud?

 

[Nashy]

If the employee is found innocent, whose fault is it that the company's name was dragged through the mud?

The employee would need to look at his legal options against those who dragged his name through the mud. IE: Not the NRL. It's a pointless question though, because my example happens in the real world, only now do people start to take notice, because for some reason, we care more about dumb football players than we do regular people. Any other aspect of life, you're sitting down, or on a desk. If it's good enough for corporate, it's good enough for the NRL.

 

[Porthoz]

The employee would need to look at his legal options against those who dragged his name through the mud. IE: Not the NRL. It's a pointless question though, because my example happens in the real world, only now do people start to take notice, because for some reason, we care more about dumb football players than we do regular people. Any other aspect of life, you're sitting down, or on a desk. If it's good enough for corporate, it's good enough for the NRL.

Oh don't get me wrong, I am not arguing for that dumb ****. My argument is for anyone who suffers that fate while not proven guilty. Bellend's example is just a very public one of something I am absolutely against.

My question was about whose fault it would be that the company (not the employee)'s name was dragged through the mud.

 

[Nashy]

Oh don't get me wrong, I am not arguing for that dumb ****. My argument is for anyone who suffers that fate while not proven guilty. Bellend's example is just a very public one of something I am absolutely against.

Lets assume you own the company you currently work for. You're the boss, your companies image is on the line. I would be very, very surprised, if someone as business savvy as you, would send an accused gang rapist to another big company to try and sell them one of your fancy machines.

It just wouldn't happen, even with your stance in here. You don't risk your business like that.