Welcome!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

SignUp Now!

Chocs AVO is rubbish

Jatz Crackers

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Nov 5, 2005
Messages
9,326
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 ?
 

weneedacement

Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2004
Messages
150
The bit that worries me the most is that the reporter thinks we give a sh!t about what he was wearing.
 

Jatz Crackers

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Nov 5, 2005
Messages
9,326
The bit that worries me the most is that the reporter thinks we give a sh!t about what he was wearing.
i was wearing a pair of navy blue pants and a warm long sleeve cotton shirt while posting this thread...weneedacement :p
 

Canteen Worker

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2004
Messages
13,242
Bottom line is that some men bash and threaten their women who then live in fear. it is a horrible reality!

The strange thing about all this is that these things happened two years ago, and no further allegations have been made. Is she really scared of him now, is she launching a civil action for damages or trying to harm his reputation? Hard to know but there are questions about the evidence as reported.
 

Jatz Crackers

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Nov 5, 2005
Messages
9,326
Bottom line is that some men bash and threaten their women who then live in fear. it is a horrible reality!

The strange thing about all this is that these things happened two years ago, and no further allegations have been made. Is she really scared of him now, is she launching a civil action for damages or trying to harm his reputation? Hard to know but there are questions about the evidence as reported.
I dont think the bottom line is that at all CW. I am trying to educate people (your average bloke) about this.

My point is you or your son could find yourself on the arse end of an application like this, at any time and you/son, under the crudest of motives, and you have no reliable recourse (not even on appeal).

I think Culvers explanations to grant the application reprehensible.
 

Matabele

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2004
Messages
23,083
She was probably too scraed to make the application sooner.
 

fLIP

UFO Hunter
Joined
Jul 15, 2004
Messages
7,460
She was probably too scraed to make the application sooner.
She would have been too scared to go to police while she was still in the abusive relationship.

I agree with mata, maybe the entire club has this culture? ;)
 

The Gronk

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2006
Messages
3,473
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 ?



One thing's for sure.....Choc should have hired Jatz to defend him!
 

Jatz Crackers

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Nov 5, 2005
Messages
9,326
[quote author=Matabele]
She was probably too scraed to make the application sooner.
She would have been too scared to go to police while she was still in the abusive relationship.

I agree with mata, maybe the entire club has this culture? ;)
[/quote]

You pair would take it far more seriously if your son was the respondent. Then again, maybe you wouldnt.
:~?
 

fLIP

UFO Hunter
Joined
Jul 15, 2004
Messages
7,460
You pair would take it far more seriously if your son was the respondent. Then again, maybe you wouldnt.
:~?
If my son hit a woman than I would personally kick his ass.

Why is our club just sitting on their asses while this happens yet Monaghan (charity worker) is told to leave?
 

Fluffy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2004
Messages
21,146
flip, re-read his post as you have completely missed the point.

Jatz was pointing out how there was no evidence just heresay.

Also just because someone is found not guilty doesnt mean they didnt do it.
 

fLIP

UFO Hunter
Joined
Jul 15, 2004
Messages
7,460
I understand that fluf.

I was trying to add to his joke in a waked sense of humor way however it failed... terribly. :lol:
 

Matabele

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2004
Messages
23,083
My point is more that the law is an ass.

There is no way we know if he clobbered her or not, and the courts are unlikely to get to the bottom of it - they just provide fodder for headlines.
 

Canteen Worker

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2004
Messages
13,242
A friend of mine is going to the Family law court this week as his ex is trying to stop access. Over three years the lady has been in total contempt of court but the court has supported her lies, innuendo etc.

In the end the only losers have been the kids. The law is an ass!!!!
 

Jatz Crackers

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Nov 5, 2005
Messages
9,326
The point I am making on this issue is that when it comes to AVOs and associated matters such as Family Law child access matters dont expect their to be proper hearings or the rule of law.

In Watmoughs case (as is with all other AVOs) the hearing was not about finding guilt or innocence, or establishing the truth of the matter, or even just making an informed finding. The Court was predisposed to make the order regardless of the actual circumstances and most importantly regardless of wether Choc had committed some offence or not.

AVO matters held in Local Courts are a complete farce & I see in Watmoughs case, Culver has delivered just that.

The thing is, it could happen to you so to be forewarned is to be forearmed.
 

Ryan

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2004
Messages
18,846
The point I am making on this issue is that when it comes to AVOs and associated matters such as Family Law child access matters dont expect their to be proper hearings or the rule of law.

In Watmoughs case (as is with all other AVOs) the hearing was not about finding guilt or innocence, or establishing the truth of the matter, or even just making an informed finding. The Court was predisposed to make the order regardless of the actual circumstances and most importantly regardless of wether Choc had committed some offence or not.

AVO matters held in Local Courts are a complete farce & I see in Watmoughs case, Culver has delivered just that.

The thing is, it could happen to you so to be forewarned is to be forearmed.
You know a lot for a conveyancer !! ;)
Mate - I need an urgent settlement done, can you catch a train to meet one of our clerks please !! ;)
 

Jatz Crackers

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Nov 5, 2005
Messages
9,326
You know a lot for a conveyancer !! ;)
Mate - I need an urgent settlement done, can you catch a train to meet one of our clerks please !! ;)
Nope. Wrong again. I have nothing to do with conveyancing.
 

2020 Ladder

Team P W D L PD Pts
1 Panthers 19 17 1 1 257 35
2 Storm 19 16 0 3 266 32
3 Roosters 19 14 0 5 282 28
4 Eels 19 14 0 5 100 28
5 Raiders 18 12 0 6 106 24
6 Rabbitohs 19 11 0 8 117 22
7 Knights 18 10 1 7 53 21
8 Sharks 19 10 0 9 10 20
9 Titans 19 8 0 11 -147 16
10 Tigers 19 7 0 12 -61 14
11 Warriors 18 7 0 11 -115 14
12 Sea Eagles 19 7 0 12 -122 14
13 Dragons 18 6 0 12 -58 12
14 Cowboys 19 4 0 15 -168 8
15 Bulldogs 19 3 0 16 -180 6
16 Broncos 19 3 0 16 -340 6
Top Bottom