DeBellin to appeal

[SeaEagleRock8]

traffic offenses like speeding, red light etc etc are all heard in the criminal jurisdiction, however, they are strict liability offenses (meaning you are considered to have committed the offense until you prove otherwise). The onus is on the defendant to prove his/her innocence.

The onus is still on the prosecution in my opinion.
But you are right there are a number of offences where, once certain conditions arise, there is an evidentiary presumption, that the accused has the onus of disproving. A common example would be PCA driving offences. Even in this type of case the prosecution has to prove all the elements, including that it was you that was driving. If they can do that, there is a legislative presumption that the breath analysis is accurate, so if you want to challenge that it is up to you to produce some evidence to raise doubt over the accuracy. If you can raise a doubt (typically by leading some sort of expert evidence), then again the prosecution has failed to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt, so you get found not guilty.

 

[MadMarcus]

Drags want the NRL to pay de Belin’s salary - fair enough too...

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/nrl/dr...r-de-belin-s-replacement-20190309-p512yc.html

 

[Woodsie]

This may help clarify the position

https://www.colemangreig.com.au/Blo...medium=syndication&utm_campaign=View-Original

I think this also seems to imply those being suspended or having contracts cancelled.

Thank you Bear, very interesting read ....

 

[BOZO]

Drags want the NRL to pay de Belin’s salary - fair enough too...

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/nrl/dr...r-de-belin-s-replacement-20190309-p512yc.html

The NRL has dug its own hole and the hole will only get deeper for them .
Fcking around with the law only proves one thing and that is it is a very costly venture .

 

[mickqld]

Drags want the NRL to pay de Belin’s salary - fair enough too...

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/nrl/dr...r-de-belin-s-replacement-20190309-p512yc.html

Just keep dragging through the courts Goons. Just makes Beatoff and Greenturd look even more incompetent.

 

[BOZO]

Just keep dragging through the courts Goons. Just makes Beatoff and Greenturd look even more incompetent.

They wanted the game not to have negative head lines and they have now created negative head lines them selves by dragging the game into the courtroom .

 

[Mark from Brisbane]

Drags want the NRL to pay de Belin’s salary - fair enough too...

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/nrl/dr...r-de-belin-s-replacement-20190309-p512yc.html

To be fair if they are going to suspend players willy nilly BEFORE their day in court I believe part of the rule should be that the clubs are compensated by the amount of the players pay during this time.

If however the club stands them down that’s different.

If De Bellin doesn’t get to play all this year and half of next that could be $800k plus they’ve spent ( Dragons) without any value.

The payment should be automatic if this rule stands.

 

[urulion]

The onus is still on the prosecution in my opinion.
But you are right there are a number of offences where, once certain conditions arise, there is an evidentiary presumption, that the accused has the onus of disproving. A common example would be PCA driving offences. Even in this type of case the prosecution has to prove all the elements, including that it was you that was driving. If they can do that, there is a legislative presumption that the breath analysis is accurate, so if you want to challenge that it is up to you to produce some evidence to raise doubt over the accuracy. If you can raise a doubt (typically by leading some sort of expert evidence), then again the prosecution has failed to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt, so you get found not guilty.

The onus is still on the prosecution in my opinion.
But you are right there are a number of offences where, once certain conditions arise, there is an evidentiary presumption, that the accused has the onus of disproving. A common example would be PCA driving offences. Even in this type of case the prosecution has to prove all the elements, including that it was you that was driving. If they can do that, there is a legislative presumption that the breath analysis is accurate, so if you want to challenge that it is up to you to produce some evidence to raise doubt over the accuracy. If you can raise a doubt (typically by leading some sort of expert evidence), then again the prosecution has failed to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt, so you get found not guilty.

Hi SeaEagleRock8,

Yes you are spot on, that the onus is on the prosecution to prove the elements of all offenses beyond reasonable doubt.

However, when a parking, redlight camera, or safety camera infringement occurs ‘owner onus’ provisions in state legislation (which varies from state to state) presumes the owner of the vehicle is at fault.

The onus shifts on the registered owner to either nomimate the responsible person in control of the vehicle or, provide adequate documentation to show they are unable to know who was in control of the vehicle at the time of the offense.

When we refer to PCA and DUI offenses it is without question that they must prove who the driver was, as an image will not assist the prosecution in proving the elements of the offense.

When there are strict liability offenses that rely on owner onus (registered owner with image of infringement) it is not up to the prosecution to prove that element, the onus shifts on the owner to dis-prove that they were not in control of vehicle at the time of the offense.

This is one instance when the ‘presumption of innocence’ does not carry.

Best regards.

 

[Mark from Brisbane]

Hi SeaEagleRock8,

Yes you are spot on, that the onus is on the prosecution to prove the elements of all offenses beyond reasonable doubt.

However, when a parking, redlight camera, or safety camera infringement occurs ‘owner onus’ provisions in state legislation (which varies from state to state) presumes the owner of the vehicle is at fault.

The onus shifts on the registered owner to either nomimate the responsible person in control of the vehicle or, provide adequate documentation to show they are unable to know who was in control of the vehicle at the time of the offense.

When we refer to PCA and DUI offenses it is without question that they must prove who the driver was, as an image will not assist the prosecution in proving the elements of the offense.

When there are strict liability offenses that rely on owner onus (registered owner with image of infringement) it is not up to the prosecution to prove that element, the onus shifts on the owner to dis-prove that they were not in control of vehicle at the time of the offense.

This is one instance when the ‘presumption of innocence’ does not carry.

Best regards.

Nice to be getting an obvious legal mind into this discussion.

Welcome aboard.

 

[Bearfax]

Thank you Bear, very interesting read ....

Seemed to give the clearest explanation regarding the issue. I liked her last example which is almost identical to the arguments being made by the NRL

 

[The Who]

The NRL claims to be worried that there will be less money for clubs if the off-field incidents continue a-pace.
Have they factored in the costs of giving clubs the replacement money of players stood down?
To date the NRL will have to stump up a reported $600,000 to Illawarra for de Belin's replacement. Then there is the potential costs for Walker and May (although I'm not sure about the latter's right for a replacement)
My point is, with the NRL going on its Stand Down Showdown they will have significantly less money in its coffers.

 

[Mark from Brisbane]

The NRL claims to be worried that there will be less money for clubs if the off-field incidents continue a-pace.
Have they factored in the costs of giving clubs the replacement money of players stood down?
To date the NRL will have to stump up a reported $600,000 to Illawarra for de Belin's replacement. Then there is the potential costs for Walker and May (although I'm not sure about the latter's right for a replacement)
My point is, with the NRL going on its Stand Down Showdown they will have significantly less money in its coffers.

And honestly (and I’m not just sweeping anything under a carpet here) but once the season starts 99% of the conversation will be about the game anyway!!

 

[Scorpio]

The NRL claims to be worried that there will be less money for clubs if the off-field incidents continue a-pace.
Have they factored in the costs of giving clubs the replacement money of players stood down?
To date the NRL will have to stump up a reported $600,000 to Illawarra for de Belin's replacement. Then there is the potential costs for Walker and May (although I'm not sure about the latter's right for a replacement)
My point is, with the NRL going on its Stand Down Showdown they will have significantly less money in its coffers.

I thought they said words to the effect of "some clubs won't be able to afford a replacement anyway".

Meaning that if the NRL allows cap dispensation, you can spend that money on a player to be included under the salary cap... But the club has to pay for it (on top of paying the player who has been stood down).

 

[Mark from Brisbane]

I thought they said words to the effect of "some clubs won't be able to afford a replacement anyway".

Meaning that if the NRL allows cap dispensation, you can spend that money on a player to be included under the salary cap... But the club has to pay for it (on top of paying the player who has been stood down).

Well what’s the point?

The extra funds would only be worthwhile if you could buy a replacement, say on a one year contract that didn’t affect your Cap position.

Otherwise as I say , what’s the point!

 

[MadMarcus]

And honestly (and I’m not just sweeping anything under a carpet here) but once the season starts 99% of the conversation will be about the game anyway!!

There’s a game?

 

[Scorpio]

Well what’s the point?

The extra funds would only be worthwhile if you could buy a replacement, say on a one year contract that didn’t affect your Cap position.

Otherwise as I say , what’s the point!

Indeed, the NRL have not answered this and it is not hard to figure out why.

Here is the article for reference.

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/nrl-to-consider-cap-exemptions-for-bans

The NRL will consider salary cap exemptions for clubs who have players stood down for behavioural reasons on a case-by-case basis as it begins to usher in its new off-field laws.

Under the NRL's new policy, clubs could lose players for the duration of court cases if they are facing more than 11 years in jail after being charged or if the league considers a matter serious enough.

There had been speculation in the build up to Thursday announcement that affected clubs would be given automatic relief, but the ARL Commission has instead opted to make it available if deemed appropriate by the NRL.

St George Illawarra could become the first club to test the system, after NSW State of Origin lock Jack de Belin was stood down on Thursday after pleading not guilty to a sexual assault charge.

"There won't be an automatic relief of salary cap of the club involved, but the club may apply to the salary cap auditor for relief which will be considered on a case-to-case basis," ARL Commission chairman Peter Beattie said.

"One of the issues that may be considered as part of that will be what the club has done in terms of cultural change to make certain that it is maintaining community standards."

There are a number of complications surrounding such a scheme, which would effectively allow clubs to have a 31st man in their roster when granted an exemption.

Most notably, it's unclear how the system could work if a player is acquitted and returned to their squad mid-season. It's also understood some club bosses are split on the matter.

While some privately believe it is unfair to offer clubs monetary relief in the case of off-field behaviour, others are happy for exemptions to be offered to have the matter resolved.

Realistically there are questions over how many clubs would be able to take up such exemptions out of their own pockets, given the payments would not be covered by additional NRL grants.

"There's a number of things we will have to consider," Greenberg said. "We can't just simply say yes to salary cap relief because quite frankly some clubs can't afford it.

"So there will be some clubs if this happens to them they simply won't apply for it. "But the short answer is we'll be looking at it favourably for those clubs who are looking at it."

 

[Mark from Brisbane]

Indeed, the NRL have not answered this and it is not hard to figure out why.

Here is the article for reference.

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/nrl-to-consider-cap-exemptions-for-bans

FMD it’s a minefield they’ve opened up isn’t it??

 

[Mark from Brisbane]

To me it should be simple.

The NRL rubs a player out then that club is granted cap exemption for the same dollar amount that they lose as a result.

If however the club decides not to take it to buy another player ( good example is Walker due to the relatively short time frame) then they don’t get that allowance.

In the case of De Bellin he could be out for 18 months , a season and a half so I reckon that’s fair.

 

[urulion]

Nice to be getting an obvious legal mind into this discussion.

Welcome aboard.

Hi Mark thank you kindly.

I have been following the sea eagles forums for a few years now. Although a passive reader when time permits, I thoroughly enjoy reading points of view and material posted throughout the forum. I love the fact that you post some of the fishing adventures you attend, if I had the available time I would engage in very similar activities. Hope you continue to catch plenty.

 

[Mark from Brisbane]

Hi Mark thank you kindly.

I have been following the sea eagles forums for a few years now. Although a passive reader when time permits, I thoroughly enjoy reading points of view and material posted throughout the forum. I love the fact that you post some of the fishing adventures you attend, if I had the available time I would engage in very similar activities. Hope you continue to catch plenty.

Heading to the Kimberley’s June-September, hope to catch a few whilst I’m away, cheers buddy!!