Landmark ruling: Jack de Belin barred from NRL return

[Porthoz]

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.

Fair question, and one I honestly don't know the answer to... it probably depends on how much damage the company would incur and how much the rest of the employees would suffer from it.

It still doesn't answer the question in regards to whose fault it would be if the company's name was dragged through the mud if the employee was found not guilty.

 

[Nashy]

Fair question, and one I honestly don't know the answer to... it probably depends on how much damage the company would incur and how much the rest of the employees would suffer from it.

It still doesn't answer the question in regards to whose fault it would be if the company's name was dragged through the mud if the employee was found not guilty.

Oh read it wrong. No idea. Not really a concern of mine. Anyway. At what point did it become the employee's decision of what job he would be doing at the company?

James Roberts can't sue the Broncos?

 

[Porthoz]

Oh read it wrong. No idea. Not really a concern of mine. Anyway. At what point did it become the employee's decision of what job he would be doing at the company?

James Roberts can't sue the Broncos?

So you're concerned about the company's name going through the mud because of an accusation against an employee, but no longer concerned about the same thing when said employee is cleared? I'm not sure I understand.

James Roberts was stood down by the Broncos for allegedly falling out with his superior, while failing to put in the required effort at training and and even during games.
Allowing him to stay in FG under those circumstances because he can on a rare occasion pull a rabbit out of his hat, while demoting others for the same flaws may also have been deemed a bad thing for the players' group morale.
I don't think it even comes near the same category... nice straw-man though.

 

[Nashy]

So you're concerned about the company's name going through the mud because of an accusation against an employee, but no longer concerned about the same thing when said employee is cleared? I'm not sure I understand.

James Roberts was stood down by the Broncos for allegedly falling out with his superior, while failing to put in the required effort at training and and even during games.
Allowing him to stay in FG under those circumstances because he can on a rare occasion pull a rabbit out of his hat, while demoting others for the same flaws may also have been deemed a bad thing for the players' group morale.
I don't think it even comes near the same category... nice straw-man though.

The company is in a position, and acted to remove that problem from their company. I'm actually not sure what your question is. Are you asking me if the police should be held accountable if the company name is dragged through the mud after they keep the employee in a customer facing role? Because that would be on them, hence it's their prerogative to take that person from the front, and sit him down the back until it blows over.

I'm certain most people don't know what straw man even means here. Certainly just the latest of BHQ buzzword wank.

James roberts was told he couldn't play first grade anymore. He's a professional footballer, he needs to play football to earn good contracts. It's no different with that argument. Players don't determine the position they play at the club. Just like JDB doesn't choose his position in the club.

If it's down to the arguments used, ie. One failing to put in, one might be a dirty rapist, the court didn't care, so I struggle to see why we should care about that?

 

[Jason Simmons]

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.

I disagree. Matty Johns for example has increased his value far more in retirement than anything he did by playing.

Again however the options to increase his value are entirely speculative. JDB ‘might’ make more money through greater availability of market opportunities by playing, but it is impossible to prove. The fact that his own lawyer couldn’t point out one single missed financial opportunity is proof of that. I can’t charge based on speculation, you can’t sue based on speculation, but you think JDB should be allowed to? Sorry my friend, the courts rightly in my opinion strike out such fanciful arguments.

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.

No it doesn’t. To me this is an even weaker argument than the idea that speculation should be allowed in court, for starters JDB has the choice of a judge only trial or a trial by Jury. That is his choice. A properly instructed Jury in my opinion having personally sat through literally DAYS of Juries being instructed will also not convict on the basis of media coverage, but in any case if he feels differently then he can have a Judge only trial and avoid that issue all together.

Secondly, this so-called “media trial” has largely occurred because of the case he brought against the NRL. The NRL didn’t bring this case, he did. What sort of legal system would we have, if businesses can be targetted through lawsuits in relation to solely speculative positions, all the while the very same person (defendants this time, not the plaintiff) charged with extremely serious criminal charges are free to turn around and complain about all the media coverage impacting their right to a fair trial? The legal system would be an absolute mockery.

What would happen under such a situation? Criminal charges being dismissed because he got a lot of media attention for a lawsuit he brought on and businesses’ rights to defend themselves at law, being completely trumped by his rights to defend himself at law? Sweet. All the NRL would need to do would be to suit him and then the rights would switch around again by that logic, and around and around it would go...

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.

He hasn’t yet suffered any consequences of an accusation of criminality. What even his own lawyer couldn’t successfully argue is that he may one day suffer consequences because his employer decided that their business interests were affected by his alleged actions and took steps to protect themselves from harm.

All the courts have ruled so far effectively boils down to the point that his right to legally defend himself, does not trump the NRL’s right to legally defend themselves. The courts have shown unequivocally that they are never going to rule in a plaintiff’s favour in such a situation and the fact that the court ordered him to pay the NRL’s rather enormous legal bills, is as big a slap down as they can do to this type of situation. The fact that JDB not only lost but his entire line of argument was slapped down publicly by the Federal Court AND he was ordered to pay the NRL’s costs in full, shows the legal position as clearly as it gets.

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.

Again I don’t agree about JDB’s ‘strategy’ for the reasons outlined above, but additionally challenging the State is the very reason WHY we have courts in the first place and why they range from the likes of QCAT which is purposefully designed to allow the ‘little fish’ to take on the big players, all the way to the Supreme Court which can deal with virtually any legal situation that can be contemplated. Any administrative action or prosecution can be challenged in this Country. But society dictates that this should never be easy in the same way that it dictates that such action should never be taken lightly.

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.

Or obey the law... Not to make myself seem holier than thou too greatly, but I’ve had 5 traffic infringements in my life and had go through the Federal Court for a Property Settlement with the first Wicked Witch... Apart from my professional role, those are the only legal dealings I’ve ever had in my 43 years on this planet... It is my experience that obeying the law means you rarely ever have to fight against ‘anything’ in this lucky country of ours.

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...

If true, I hope and expect he will enjoy a significant stretch at Her Majesty’s Pleasure, based on the allegations I have heard.

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...

People could, but you have to remember the fines you get on a ticket are the regulated amount for the infringement notice, not the full range of penalties available to a court for dealing with these offences. Hence why you see those ‘you may be fined up to $16,518 or 12 months in jail’ type posters in pubs. Those penalties are the maximum you could receive for these offences, not the infringement amounts, which are set by regulation if the ticket is paid.

Some sort of ‘anti-justice’ movement to clog up the courts would probably see the courts respond in kind...

 

[Jason Simmons]

Fair question, and one I honestly don't know the answer to... it probably depends on how much damage the company would incur and how much the rest of the employees would suffer from it.

It still doesn't answer the question in regards to whose fault it would be if the company's name was dragged through the mud if the employee was found not guilty.

Who is doing the dragging? Not the NRL. If JDB think he has been unfairly treated by the media outlets doing said dragging, he has legal options against them.

But then again, when you are appearing in press conferences you have called with your lawyer and discussing your legal case (or cases), it’s likely to prove to be a rather difficult argument to put to a court that subsequent media coverage is negatively impacting your image / rights...

Certainly the courts so far have struck out this line of argument. Hopefully the Criminal Courts follow the same tack.

Would a great smackdown for show-boating lawyers if nothing else and would be a worthy thing for this alone...

 

[Super Freak]

De Belin's lawyers have filed an appeal in the Federal Court.

 

[The Strapper]

I find it hard to believe anybody really cares what happens to him now, except for precedents and what not.

I think it’s more about the legal process rather than the man.
If he wins the case there will be big implications for current nrl policy.