Brett Stewart ordered to stand trial

[clontaago]

MANLY rugby league star Brett Stewart has been ordered to stand trial on counts of sexually assaulting a 17-year-old girl.
In Sydney's Downing Centre Local Court on Monday, Deputy Chief Magistrate Paul Cloran ordered the 24-year-old fullback to face a NSW District Court trial, which will be mentioned in that court on April 9.

The magistrate concluded there was a reasonable prospect a properly instructed jury could convict Stewart of an indictable offence.

The footballer, who appeared at the court on crutches, is charged with having sexual intercourse, involving digital penetration, with the girl without her consent on the evening of March 6, 2009 at North Manly.

He also is charged with assault with an act of indecency, namely that he "forced his tongue into her mouth".

Stewart, who told the magistrate he would reserve his defence, had his bail continued.

 

[DSM5]

Sums it up.  Dad's a real shonk, quite the criminal history re fraud, passing valueless cheques, money laundering, obtaining money by deception, using false names for benefit.  No defense offered by Brett's beak, so they must have known it would be passed up the line. 

 

[Guest]

One would think that there would have been DNA evidence if there was digit penetration or a tongue down her throat?

Brett's legal bills must be huge.

 

[Fro]

with the publicity that has been attached to this case it would have been a very game magistrate to chuck it out.

 

[weev]

If the dad's a fraudster, where does he get the payoff? Selling his story is all I can think of. Too late to ask for hush money.

There are probably only two people who know what really happened? And one of them was blind drunk...

Sad for all really?

 

[DSM5]

Agreed Tooks, legal bloodsuckers are the real winners in this sorry saga.   And, you're right about the DNA.  Apparently none from Brett or the girl.  Next matchup, April the 9th at the Sydney District Court.  I can see Brett getting off this at a criminal trial but a civil matter might bankrupt the poor guy.  The bar for evidence is set much lower in a civil matter.  That's where the dad might be heading.       

 

[Matabele]

Too late to ask for hush money.

  It didn't stop him trying last year though.

 

[conanu]

If he is found innocent at a criminal trial why wuld he then have to sit through a Civil action. And what does a civil acton do does that mean he an still go to jail or is it just for Compo.

 

[Dan]

If he is found innocent at a criminal trial why wuld he then have to sit through a Civil action. And what does a civil acton do does that mean he an still go to jail or is it just for Compo.

You don't remember the OJ trial and the later civil trial?

Civil action is basically suing him

 

[conanu]

Not old enough to remember Dan, Ha Ha only messin. Thanks mate i was just unsure of how it works. DSM thankyou so much for your help on this. Im sitting in front of my Computer in Ireland and without your info i would be none the wiser. Thanks Mate

 

[ads]

In a criminal trial you have to be found guilty beyond reasonable doubt. As in if there is any reasonable doubt you should be found not guilty.

In a civil case it is on the balance of probabilities. As in if it appears more likely than not that you did it you can lose the civil matter. Much lower bar, though in a civil matter the person suing would have to prove that they've suffered some sort of loss/damage to be awarded money etc.

 

[DSM5]

Correct ads, and so it seems with Walter Mitty saying his life has been hell etc, he might be setting the scene.  The guys no slouch.  He has clearly mastered the art of court appearances and was confident throughout.  Not the trembling pushover type, more the fraudster, and good at it, type.

 

[Mark from Brisbane]

My mate's a legal eagle and he reckons after the fiasco with the Bulldogs a few years ago that considering the high profile nature ofthis case that it would have been VERY unlikely for it not to go to trial.

This could go either way, a sympathetic jury....who knows!!!

 

[weev]

I hope we are not confusing US law with Australian.

I am uncertain if there is a suing option for the plaintiff.... perhaps some criminal injuries compensation but that used to be very minor.

Any bush lawyers who can inform us?

 

[clontaago]

Any bush lawyers who can inform us?

Do bush lawyers come up against the Department of Pubic Prosecutions?

 

[weev]

[quote author=weev link=topic=182771.msg256242#msg256242 date=1269226760]
Any bush lawyers who can inform us?

Do bush lawyers come up against the Department of Pubic Prosecutions?
[/quote]

I am sorry, I meant shrub lawyers...