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

Judicial Transparency

Discussion in 'Rugby League Forum' started by Loyal Eagle, Sep 1, 2011.

  1. Loyal Eagle

    Loyal Eagle Member

    9
    5
    Ratings:
    +5 / 0
    Legal counsel withdraws his services after email ping pong fails to uncover the technical information relating to the charges and judicial process. Question; 'does the NRL judicial process lack the integrity required to offer the accused a fair hearing?' As a result is may be denied natural justice?

    Let me explain; there are a number of proofs required to establish a larceny (stealing offence) including having the mens rea (mental intention) of permanently depriving the owner of their property. Therefore, borrowing is not stealing because you intend to return the item (at some point) in the future.. so you go to court and show you were borrowing the item not keeping it forever = not guilty but guilty of misappropriation if you decide to steal it after it was originally leant to you.. different defence required and NRL need to prove guilt.

    If our representative was asking for the required information (proofs) they will use to establish innocence/ guilt and this was not available, he may not be prepared to mount a credible legal defence. Grade 1 striking the head of opponent.. proof is 'did the player come into contact with the head' Video evidence is clear = guilty.. easy! If they are not provided because the broad subjective offence of 'bringing game into disrepute' and nobody can define how this is to be assessed, then clearly the charges and punishment (validity of the decision) would be questionable. Evidence from telegraph newspaper poll.. positive for the game!

    Only guessing, but if the sin bin was incorrectly determined, then all matters after this point may be inadmissable, as evidence because the duty of care from the NRL officials is where negligence may fall for the incident, eg. not escorting players to a penalty box as per ice hockey? Particularly given these incidents have previously occurred (Dowling v Tamati sideline altercation..) Is this why referees are being called to give evidence?

    Unfortunately, after the guilty verdict.. the only option is to challenge the decision in the international court of arbitration for sport (see cases where positive drug testing results are overturned on appeal) The positive would be all charges like these in the future would be framed more clearly for others that follow.

    Or alternatively Gallop could provide leadership.. hope this is on the agenda for Wayne Pearce as an ex player on the NRL Commission!
     
  2. Stevo

    Stevo Well-Known Member

    4,566
    995
    NSW
    Ratings:
    +1,319 / 47
    You should change your name to Legal Eagle.
     
  3. WAMF

    WAMF Well-Known Member

    3,201
    389
    Perth
    Ratings:
    +408 / 0
    Well explained.
    I have to suggest you change your name from Loyal Eagle to Legal Eagle. Cheers.[hr]
    Fonz got in first. lol
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Jatz Crackers

    Jatz Crackers Moderator Staff Member

    9,128
    1,149
    Ratings:
    +1,242 / 7
    Being a tribunal, issues such as principals of natural justice and rules of evidence are different to say, a criminal court.
     
  5. Mark from Brisbane

    Mark from Brisbane Living the dream Premium Member

    16,325
    5,339
    Brisbane
    Ratings:
    +12,704 / 257
    We are awash with Lawyers at present...welcome Legal Eagle (or Loyal)
     
  6. Jethro

    Jethro This space is for rent Staff Member Premium Member 2016 Tipping Competitor

    7,127
    1,492
    Ratings:
    +1,897 / 7
    or even "Loyal Legal Eagle"
     
  7. Rex

    Rex Well-Known Member

    4,334
    761
    Ratings:
    +2,338 / 60
    Primary evidence of the unfairness and denial of natural justice aspects of subjective charges like "bringing game into disrepute" is the whole Brett Stewart saga. Four weeks for a charge for which no player has ever received even a one week suspension, and likely never will be again.

    If an authority cannot clearly specify what constitutes an offence, then it opens the way to extreme, unjustifiable and unfair sanctions by a dictatorial-style leader or leadership group.

    IMO The NRL would be on very shaky ground if these rules were ever seriously challenged.
     
  8. DSM5

    DSM5 Well-Known Member 2016 Tipping Competitor

    9,997
    516
    Ratings:
    +516 / 0
    The club should grow some balls and stand up to the NRL. Make them accountable. Hopefully all this type of ****e will be ironed out with the Commission, but I doubt it with Goose in charge.
     
  9. Masked Eagle

    Masked Eagle Well-Known Member

    3,939
    919
    Ratings:
    +976 / 0
    Good post but just to play the devils advocate, the only bone of contention would be "the email ping pong failed to uncover the technical information relating to the charges and judicial process". That is the opinion of the former Manly QC and would be disputed by the NRL if it ever went that far. The NRL would say more than enough information was handed over.
     

Share This Page