So here is an article containing excerpts from the hearing. The highlighted parts show just how indefensible the application of the law is in these matters: http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=262668 Ex-partner slaps AVO on Manly's Watmough Monday Jun 25 16:16 AEST Manly rugby league player Anthony Watmough has been ordered to stay away from his former partner for 12 months following accusations of a string of violent attacks. The 23-year-old Sea Eagles second rower was slapped with an apprehended violence order (AVO) on Monday in Sydney's Manly Local Court, where his former partner of seven years Gillian Rixon, 24, claimed he abused her on several occasions in 2004 and 2005. Watmough, wearing a navy blue pin-stripe suit and pink shirt looked downcast as Magistrate Jane Culver ordered him to stay at least 100 metres away from Ms Rixon's North Narrabeen home and workplace. Watmough, from Harbord, is not allowed to contact Ms Rixon, or any close relation of hers, unless it is through legal representations. The court heard that Ms Rixon feared more violence from Watmough, whom she said had assaulted her on three occasions after drinking heavily. On one occasion, Watmough is alleged to have pushed Rixon into a table at the Manly Wharf Bar on New Year's Eve 2004/05, and of throwing coins and a chair at her later in the evening at her unit. Watmough's lawyer Garry Gillet dismissed Ms Rixon's statements as "fabrications and lies" but magistrate Jane Culver said her evidence was "clearly reliable". "It was clear to me when cross examined about the particular details Ms Rixon had a very clear recall of what occurred," Magistrate Culver told the court. "The evidence she gave was spontaneous and was based upon a great deal of recall. "I find that Ms Rixon was genuine, credible and that her evidence did accord with common sense." Watmough is also accused of assaulting Rixon outside the Manly home of his manager, George Mimis, on January 21, 2005 at 5am, where he and fellow Sea Eagles player Travis Burns were entertaining two women. Watmough denied any violent behaviour, but Magistrate Culver said: "If they were as the defendant suggests just standing in front of the gate, why would police officers come up to the door?". The court also heard that when police attended the scene outside Mr Mimis' house, Watmough threatened to take away financial support from Ms Rixon if she spoke up. It is alleged that Watmough said: "I've got the money, I've got the power, I'll take everything from you". Rixon earlier gave evidence that an intoxicated Watmough tried to jam her in between sliding doors after the two attended a 21st birthday party in August 2004. Gillet told the court that the incident didn't occur and that Watmough was not drunk because he was able to play a full 80 minutes of first grade NRL against Wests Tigers the following day, but Magistrate Culver said "I don't think I can say no footballers drink a fair amount of alcohol on the night before a match". No police charges have been laid over any of the incidents. The court also heard that Watmough had believed his relationship with Rixon had ended in December 2005 but Magistrate Culver accepted that Rixon believed the relationship was continuing. During the hearing, Watmough called three witnesses including Mimis, Byrnes, and friend Jesse Bird, who testified against Rixon's recollection of events. But Magistrate Culver questioned the reliability of their evidence, also taking into account photographs showing bruises on Rixon's arms. So heres a few questions for the Silvertail residents: 1) Rixon claims abuse occurred in 2004 & 2005. Why was action not taken back then and why didnt the police take action if there was eveidence of a transgression of the law ? 2) How can Magistrate Culver accept that Rixon realistically fears further violence when Watmough says the relationship ended in 05.......2 YEARS AGO. Has there been any evidence of incident in the last 2 years? Since no evidence of that was introduced I will bet there has been none. 3) Why does Culver dismiss evidence from Mimis, Burns & Bird yet completely accepts the unsubstantiated evidence of Rixon ? 4) Does Culver feel ashamed when she applies the law to be a reversal of onus of proof: "Gillet told the court that the incident didn't occur and that Watmough was not drunk because he was able to play a full 80 minutes of first grade NRL against Wests Tigers the following day, but Magistrate Culver said, "I don't think I can say no footballers drink a fair amount of alcohol on the night before a match". Do you see the problem with how Magistrate Culver has dealt with that? a) Rixon alleges he was drunk to support her claims. b) Choc denies it. c) The magistrate simply suggests that he could have been drunk. So the applicant Rixon is not required to prove her allegation but Choc is now in a position of having to disprove her allegation. There is a major major difference and its an almost impossible hurdle to overcome, even IF the magistrate wasnt going to automatically grant the application in any case. 5) These photos of bruised arms. Why were they not provided to the police either back when the alleged incidents occurred 2-3 years ago, or at any other time since to the police. Could it be that the bruised arms (if indeed they are real) were made by someone other than Watmough. Could this simply be false evidence ? 6) So why does Culver make a finding to grant Rixons application without substantive evidence to support her allegations ? 7) Does any of you here support the legal application of the reversal of the onus of proof ? Would you enjoy the application of that in law if it was you or your son as the respondent ?