Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Jason Simmons, post: 3040118, member: 8275"] 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. 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... 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. 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. 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. If true, I hope and expect he will enjoy a significant stretch at Her Majesty’s Pleasure, based on the allegations I have heard. 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... [/QUOTE]

Verification

Active Now

No members online now.

Total: 14 (members: 0, guests: 14)

Reply to thread

Log in

Active Now