DeBellin to appeal

@yokahontas - I actually don't care two hoots about Greg Bird and he certainly has a long rap sheet. The context really is the many pages currently discussing implications of pleading not guilty/presumptions of innocence and a few have referred to how unfairly Snake was treated (and continues to be treated)

One thing you are wrong about - self defence is a defence to any charge of assault, and glassing is a particularly nasty offence that has nothing to do with an accident.

Not believing the witnesses is a quite separate issue. But as for Bird's partner changing her story, that's simply not true! She never made a statement. And neither of them gave evidence at the first hearing, which was decided on circumstantial evidence, of which the lies about the flatmate were relied on heavily by Magistrate Clisdell to persuade him of Bird's guilt. On appeal they both gave evidence - for the first time - about what had happened, and about the lie.

Significantly, the judge didn't say, 'I suspect you of glassing but find it is not proved beyond a reasonable doubt'. In all the reports I have seen he actually accepted their evidence, he believed them. It was Milligan who was the aggressor and her injuries were an accident.

For what it's worth Judge Finnane was a very experienced judge, a QC and acting judge of the Supreme Court who'd spent many years in the Army. He had certainly 'been around the block' and I have no doubt he was capable of assessing the credibility of witnesses.

But yes I agree the courts do get it wrong at times, and everyone will form their own view from news reports, or 2nd hand inaccurate accounts of news reports, or whatever else.
 
SeaEagleRock8 said:
@yokahontas - I actually don't care two hoots about Greg Bird and he certainly has a long rap sheet. The context really is the many pages currently discussing implications of pleading not guilty/presumptions of innocence and a few have referred to how unfairly Snake was treated (and continues to be treated)

One thing you are wrong about - self defence is a defence to any charge of assault, and glassing is a particularly nasty offence that has nothing to do with an accident.

Not believing the witnesses is a quite separate issue. But as for Bird's partner changing her story, that's simply not true! She never made a statement. And neither of them gave evidence at the first hearing, which was decided on circumstantial evidence, of which the lies about the flatmate were relied on heavily by Magistrate Clisdell to persuade him of Bird's guilt. On appeal they both gave evidence - for the first time - about what had happened, and about the lie.

Significantly, the judge didn't say, 'I suspect you of glassing but find it is not proved beyond a reasonable doubt'. In all the reports I have seen he actually accepted their evidence, he believed them. It was Milligan who was the aggressor and her injuries were an accident.

For what it's worth Judge Finnane was a very experienced judge, a QC and acting judge of the Supreme Court who'd spent many years in the Army. He had certainly 'been around the block' and I have no doubt he was capable of assessing the credibility of witnesses.

But yes I agree the courts do get it wrong at times, and everyone will form their own view from news reports, or 2nd hand inaccurate accounts of news reports, or whatever else.
Click to expand...

Yes, she never made a statement to police. What she did do was tell the staff at Sutherland Hospital what had happened, immediately after the incident - there had obviously already been collusion between her and Bird at that time, because she said ‘the flatmate did it’ (and the text messages to said flatmate informing him he was being blamed had already started). No mention of it being accidental, or of her taking the blame for what happened, until an extremely long time afterward, when the idiots realised the flatmate wasn’t just going to take the rap for something he didn’t do. I would absolutely draw the same conclusions from that as Magistrate Clisdell did - there was no reason to lie except to cover culpable behaviour. Bird was working on a cover story almost from the moment he realised what he’d done and what the consequences could be. A dumb, outlandish cover story. And from what I know about psychology and human behaviour, what was said earlier in the piece, before there were months and months to discuss all the possible permutations and outcomes, and pull a carefully woven narrative together, is likely to be closest to the truth. Someone did it to her, rather than it being her own fault, and since it was found there was nobody else in the room except Greg Bird at the time...

Let’s not forget, the first attempt at avoiding conviction was her taking off overseas. She had gone back to the US before his trial, and was actually in Spain while he was in court, I believe. Making big efforts to not have to attend court and say anything about what happened. The ‘accident’ story only came out when that strategy failed to avoid him being convicted.

Call me cynical, but convenient matchy-matchy stories in court don’t impress me - not when they differ wildly from what you were originally saying, and there’s been intervening time and interaction for collusion. Especially when it’s a DV case and there are the added elements of him wheedling his way back into the good books, and the victim witnessing the distress of someone they love/d at the prospect of going to gaol. There’s all sorts of emotional blackmail that takes place in those situations.

Essentially by the time that case got to the appeal stage, neither party had any credibility to fall back on. So, while I understand the court’s decision in light of the lack of external evidence to the contrary, I’m not buying what they were selling. If it were genuinely an accident there would’ve been at least some inkling of that before it got to the post-conviction appeal stage, not a series of other strategies to try and make it go away.

I also don’t believe an ‘accidental’ and/or ‘recoil’ action would cause a fractured eye socket. Some lacerations, sure - but what was the glass made of, solid lead? Her eye socket made of balsa wood? It takes significant force to cause that injury.
 
So it seems to be an issue whether a decree or resolution by a governing organization and yet to be officially ratified can still be enforced on an individual [ registered club contracted employee ] facing possible criminal charges . Restraint of trade argument , would seem valid but again naturally would seem to depend on just how much power can the respective organization head body exert within their own jurisdriction as opposed to other legal or technical provisions . Guess that there will be some indication quite soon . Still seems some shoddy preparation and administrative practice by Toddy and Co however .
 
MadMarcus said:
NRL must use the same reasoning. If they let de Bellin play they must think it’s likely that it would cause him to sexually assault someone or skip the country.
Click to expand...


Amusing interpretation. But even if there was a likelihood of such behaviour, that is for the courts to decide. But good try anyway. It did raise a chuckle..
 
So my understanding is that JDB successfully pointed out that the rule itself hasn't been made official therefore the NRL made false & misleading statements by announcing he had been stood down but that the NRL will be formalising the rule next week & therefore can stand him down from that point on anyway?
 
47MVEagle said:
So my understanding is that JDB successfully pointed out that the rule itself hasn't been made official therefore the NRL made false & misleading statements by announcing he had been stood down but that the NRL will be formalising the rule next week & therefore can stand him down from that point on anyway?
Click to expand...

That is my understanding....the issue will then be if the NRL can retrospectively punish players.
 
MadMarcus said:
de Belin is also seeking a declaration that the NRL can never implement the rule
Click to expand...

That may well be the case. I dont know.

I'm comfortable with the NRL making rules that only red-headed lefthanders are eligible to play.
But they need to draw a line in the sand, and move foward with whatever rule, law, etc from that date...no retrospective rules.
 
MadMarcus said:
de Belin is also seeking a declaration that the NRL can never implement the rule
Click to expand...

No that wouldn’t be the case, he’d be arguing that he was penalised BEFORE the rule even existed and as such he shouldn’t be suspended retrospectively!

Once in place I’d imagine any misdemeanours from that point couldn’t be argued against.

But, just to confirm, I’m a retired old fart not a legal Eagle so that might be utter bull****!
 
I attend to agree with the view that the policy cannot be enforced retrospectively. I'm sure the judge will look at the intention of the policy from every angle. The NRL in their initial press release stated that the policy was also introduced in part to act as a deterrent to would be offenders, to drive a cultural change etc.. If you take that into consideration, Debellin and all the others that have been stood down, could not have been intended to be covered by a policy that was not in effect or in existence at the time of charges.. Clearly the arrogant fools at the helm should have got their legalities in order before making a decleration.
 
Last edited:
mave said:
That may well be the case. I dont know.

I'm comfortable with the NRL making rules that only red-headed lefthanders are eligible to play.
Click to expand...

I think they are pretty much doing that. Every other player has probably been filmed in a sex video and will be caught out and suspended soon.
 
Mark from Brisbane said:
No that wouldn’t be the case, he’d be arguing that he was penalised BEFORE the rule even existed and as such he shouldn’t be suspended retrospectively!

Once in place I’d imagine any misdemeanours from that point couldn’t be argued against.

But, just to confirm, I’m a retired old fart not a legal Eagle so that might be utter bull****!
Click to expand...


Certainly De Bellin would probably be arguing that issue in part. But this is a broader issue and regards whether the League can prejudge cases and suspend players who have yet to have their day in court. If the court consider this a breach of human rights, then the League cannot impose any such law retrospectively or pre-emptively. It will be an interesting court case with potentially very broad consequences...a precedent
 
Can anyone clarify this for me. I work in commercial construction and every project I do we sign a contract which has a scope of works on it, anything outside of that is a variation. You just can’t tag on or add scope to it, my question being can they just add this on mid way through a contract and enforce it saying it’s part of our guidelines now ?
 
mave said:
That is my understanding....the issue will then be if the NRL can retrospectively punish players.
Click to expand...

(NB This downloads automaticaly,)
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAAegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw2jMx4iUMvaZQrk62y1BHFt

Section 3) xii) 9)

(9) Any other rules, regulations or policies adopted by NSWRL from
time to time which are designated to apply in respect of the NSWRL
Competitions and the participants in those NSWRL Competitions;
as amended from time to time, and whether those amendments are effected
before or after this Agreement is entered into.




Won't be retrospective as the NRL contract now states that the player upholds the rules of the NRL.

This subsection is merely a specification of an existing rule,once the legal wording is agreed upon with the RLPA and NRL lawyers.

The majority of players are not objecting to it being added to the NRL Rule book @:cool:

Lawyers at 10 paces 😕

giphy.gif
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Members online

Total: 295 (members: 14, guests: 281)

Latest posts

Team P W L PD Pts
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0

Online statistics

Members online
14
Guests online
281
Total visitors
295
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Latest posts

Newest members

Stay Connected

Back
Top Bottom