1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Brett Stewart has case to answer over sex assault charges, lawyers adimts

Discussion in 'Rugby League Forum' started by DUFFMAN, Sep 28, 2009.

  1. DUFFMAN

    DUFFMAN Active Member

    644
    82
    Ratings:
    +296 / 5
    MANLY rugby league star Brett Stewart will face a committal hearing early next year as his lawyers conceded in a Sydney court he does have a case to answer.

    READ HERE

    Doesnt look good for snake
     
  2. Zep

    Zep Active Member

    1,692
    8
    Ratings:
    +8 / 0
    it never did duffman. Would be good to have this put to bed one way or another, though i am leaning to one particular way.
     
  3. Jatz Crackers

    Jatz Crackers Moderator Staff Member

    9,128
    1,149
    Ratings:
    +1,242 / 7
    Not good news.

    With that committal date & the concessions by his own legal team, it would appear certain that this case will drag on through the 2010 season.
     
  4. The Wheel

    The Wheel Well-Known Member

    10,890
    805
    Ratings:
    +1,766 / 72
    This is just part of the process IMO, whether he has to face court or not will be decided at the commital hearing. 
     
  5. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Ratings:
    +0 / 0
    There are two kinds of court hearings. The first is the committal hearing, where a magistrate decides if there is enough evidence for the case to go to trial. The committal hearing is held in a Magistrates' Court and will probably be heard a couple of months after the person is charged with sexual assault.

    The magistrate may allow a closed court at the committal hearing while the victim/survivor gives their evidence. The victim/survivor's name is not given in court, this is protected by the Law. The Judicial Proceedings Reports Act 1958 prevents any publication of details likely to lead to the identification of a person against whom a sexual offence is alleged to have been committed.

    The case against the accused person is presented at the committal hearing and at the trial by a Barrister briefed by the Director of Public Prosecutions. The victim/survivor's position in the court is that of a witness, so they won't have a lawyer representing them in court. The alleged offender is defended by their own lawyer. They may not have representation at the committal hearing, but they almost certainly will if there is a trial. The person does not have to give evidence, but at the Committal Hearing must enter a plea. Their lawyer will often act on their behalf.

    The trial

    The second court hearing is the trial. This is usually before a Judge of the County Court and a jury. The court is generally not a closed court at trial. However, on application by the prosecution and at a Judge's discretion, the court can be closed while the victim/survivor gives their evidence.

    If the alleged offender pleads guilty, the victim/survivor will not have to give evidence at the court and will not even have to attend the court at all. However, if the alleged offender pleads not guilty they will have to give evidence under oath in the witness box and be cross-examined by the defence. After evidence has been given by the victim/survivor other witnesses will be questioned.

    At the end of the trial, the jury gives a "guilty" or "not guilty" verdict and the Judge then passes sentence. The trial may take a few days or occasionally several weeks.
     
  6. ManlyBacker

    ManlyBacker Winging it Staff Member

    11,596
    843
    Ratings:
    +971 / 7
    SMH:
    Stewart was not at the Downing Centre Local Court today when his committal hearing was set down for February 4.

    Defence barrister Clive Steirn SC told Magistrate Jane Culver he was no longer seeking to question the teenage complainant at the hearing.

    However, the court heard that Stewart's lawyers want to cross-examine the psychiatrist who has treated her since 2007, about her medication and prognosis.

    "What we need to know is the prognosis at various stages by the treating psychiatrist, both prior to the allegation and subsequent to the allegation, if she's still being treated," Mr Steirn said.

    Ms Culver set the matter down for a one-day committal hearing, to determine whether Stewart should face trial over the alleged incident.

    She also continued an interim apprehended violence order taken out against Stewart for the girl's protection.

    Kim Arlington is a Herald Court Reporter
     
  7. DSM5

    DSM5 Well-Known Member 2016 Tipping Competitor

    9,997
    516
    Ratings:
    +516 / 0
    The case was difficult to get to by the general public.  It wasn't listed in the press, the net, or on court lists at the Downing Centre.  Strange days indeed. 
     
  8. nita

    nita Member

    425
    2
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0
    Of course he has a case to answer, he always did.

    There's no new big developments here - I think this is just a media spin..
     
  9. OneEyedEagle

    OneEyedEagle Well-Known Member 2016 Tipping Competitor

    1,304
    136
    Ratings:
    +176 / 0
    I hate commenting on this but here goes:

    Interesting however I doubt that a barrister would admit guilt by that ridiculous statement that he has a case to answer.

    It also appears that they are trying to discredit the evidence presented by the alleged victim. That’s the only reason I can see why the psychiatrist is going to be called up.

    Not only has the old man had a chequered past but the daughter by the sounds of it might be a bit of a fruit loop also.

    Just wish it would be over done with by now and not drag out till next year.
     
  10. Cameron

    Cameron Cambo Premium Member

    6,170
    458
    Redcliffe
    Ratings:
    +662 / 35
    I hate commenting on this but here goes:

    Interesting however I doubt that a barrister would admit guilt by that ridiculous statement that he has a case to answer.

    It also appears that they are trying to discredit the evidence presented by the alleged victim. That’s the only reason I can see why the psychiatrist is going to be called up.

    Not only has the old man had a chequered past but the daughter by the sounds of it might be a bit of a fruit loop also.

    Just wish it would be over done with by now and not drag out till next year.

    [/quote]couldnt agree more hes been thru enough hasnt he
     
  11. OneEyedEagle

    OneEyedEagle Well-Known Member 2016 Tipping Competitor

    1,304
    136
    Ratings:
    +176 / 0
    Here is a little more on it :

    http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,26135024-29277,00.html?from=public_rss

    In most legal proceedings, one of the parties has the burden of proof, which requires that party to present prima facie evidence of all facts essential to its case. If that party fails to present prima facie evidence on any required element of its case, its claim may be dismissed without any response by the opposing party.

    Prima facie is a Latin expression (which originates from Middle English) meaning "on its first appearance", or "by first instance" used in common law jurisdictions to denote evidence that is sufficient, if not rebutted, to prove a particular proposition or fact. In most legal proceedings, one of the parties has the burden of proof, which requires that party to present prima facie evidence of all facts essential to its case. If that party fails to present prima facie evidence on any required element of its case, its claim may be dismissed without any response by the opposing party. A prima facie case may be insufficient to enable a party to prevail if the opposing party introduces contradictory evidence or asserts an affirmative defence. Sometimes the introduction of prima facie evidence is informally called making a case or building a case.

    For example, in a criminal prosecution, the prosecution has the burden of presenting prima facie evidence of each element of the crime charged. In a murder case, this would include evidence that the defendant's act caused the victim's death, and evidence that the defendant acted with malice aforethought. If the prosecution were to fail to introduce such evidence, then its case would fail on grounds of "failure to make out a prima facie case," even without rebuttal by the defendant. This evidence need not be conclusive or irrefutable, and evidence rebutting the case may not be considered.

    Source(s):

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prima_facie
     
  12. Canteen Worker

    Canteen Worker Well-Known Member 2016 Tipping Competitor

    13,234
    186
    Ratings:
    +212 / 5
    This is just standard procedure - as a high profile case there had to be compelling evidence to support Brett's innocence for the case to stop at this point - at the next level there has to be enough evidence to support his guilt and a likely conviction, which is an entirely different scenario.

    however it is likely to be very disruptive to both Brett and Manly's pre-season.

    Should he actually go to trial following the committal it will be a a much bigger deal.
     
  13. niccipops

    niccipops un echidna spillo mia bevanda Premium Member 2016 Tipping Competitor

    5,436
    2,922
    Ratings:
    +5,521 / 50
    Sounds like it's going to drag on and on which is really bad for Brett and the team. The "lawyer admits" quote sounds like a bit of media hype as I don't think any decent lawyer would make any such implications towards a client. That sort of lawyer wouldn't keep a job.
    Best of luck to Brett & family.
     
  14. Ron E. Gibbs

    Ron E. Gibbs Well-Known Member

    1,731
    536
    Ratings:
    +1,437 / 12
    Nita is right: there's nothing to see here, move along.
    Really, it's just another case of a headline ("Stewart's lawyer admits he has case to answer") misrepresenting the guts of the article. As a point of legal procedure his lawyers have admitted there is a prima facie case to answer, and they will not object to the case going to the committal hearing. At the same time they have reasserted Brett's claim of innocence and the fact he intends to defend the charges.
    Admitting there's a case to answer is NOT admitting guilt. There's no connection between the two.
     
  15. niccipops

    niccipops un echidna spillo mia bevanda Premium Member 2016 Tipping Competitor

    5,436
    2,922
    Ratings:
    +5,521 / 50
    Did a bit of snooping around on the net and a legal question & answer book I own. It appears as though it is the norm for a case such as this to go to a committal hearing.
    Unless there's a rabbit to be pulled out of a hat at the committal hearing things will proceed to trial.
    The theme of "Big tough footy player hurts little 17-year-old girl" will have everyone baying for blood.
    From what's been previously published I can't see how this case could possibly be proved beyond reasonable doubt, but B.Stewy's going to have to be tough.
    How can it not mess with the guy's head? It's a horrible situation to be in.
     
  16. deadlyeagle

    deadlyeagle Member

    671
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0
    Well for all those optimists out there, I will put a positive spin on this on your behalf. Hypothetically lets say that in a couple of years (hope months) this trial gets done and dusted and Brett is innocent as we all belive he is.

    Well I would expect if this were to occur that Brett just may end up being a one club player due to all the support he has recieved from the club and the fans. I tell you what you would not find that at the roosters / cronulla that is for sure.
     
  17. Ryan

    Ryan Well-Known Member

    14,912
    2,682
    Ratings:
    +6,115 / 287
    Like Minichello? Hehehehe
     
  18. deadlyeagle

    deadlyeagle Member

    671
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0
    Yes but they are now paying nothing to keep him and no other club is interested in him. Injury is different to court case, nearly all manly fans are supporting brett.
     
  19. Cameron

    Cameron Cambo Premium Member

    6,170
    458
    Redcliffe
    Ratings:
    +662 / 35
    even if he is found to be innocent (which will happen) it rules out esl for him.
    As we have seen players who have been charged and let off refused work visas in pommy land
     
  20. Fro

    Fro Well-Known Member

    8,337
    181
    Ratings:
    +245 / 0
    they cant be refused unless convicted.
     

Share This Page