Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Jason Simmons, post: 3039412, member: 8275"] 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] 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification

Active Now

No members online now.

Total: 20 (members: 0, guests: 20)

Reply to thread

Log in

Active Now