DeBellin to appeal

[pt73]

Why are they worried? The sponsorship is with the Illawarra club and will only impact on them.
I can understand why Illawarra would be worried.

Perception is reality, a major sponsor cancels their contract which just creates more fodder for the press on an issue that the NRL wants to go away.

 

[Bearfax]

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 ?

Legally the contract should be binding, unless by consent conditions are added or subtracted. Obviously some employers will do the right think and negotiate terms. Others don't give a hoot, because there are always other potential employees available on the street. In such cases unless you have an effective union, taking on an employer alone usually ends in the employee losing out. Taking them to court is expensive, and of course without the backing of a union structure (that works) you could end up on the scrapheap, unless you are the sort of employee that the employer finds essential to operations. Unfortunately the law tends to be more effective if you can pay for it or have sufficient influence to assert your legal rights

 

[Sue]

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.

Everyone up here knows how it happened . He is a very lucky man .

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

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.

Well I don’t know whether Milligan’s eye socket is made of balsa wood but at least you have proved one thing: pop psychology reigns supreme in the court of public opinion!

 

[Tragic Eagle]

This is all about corporate dollars. This administration has a history of reactive approaches rather than proactive responses. The loss of major sponsors (and its already started) would see the games value to broadcasters driven down significantly. The game is a rabble right now due to a lack of strong consistent leadership. There can be no fairness in the absence of consistency notwithstanding the intellectually insulting garbage that they serve up us in the press. Financially powerful clubs have been given far too much levity in matters of discipline and allowed to clean up there own mess without the NRL touching it. The Gee's departure at Brisbane, Lodge being permitted to play for the Broncos, Haas not being interviewed by the integrity unit and Brisbane being permitted to impose their own penalty. Permitting players to return to the game after being imprisoned was a huge commercial mistake. The lack of structure, clear transparent rules and a dictator ship at the hands of a few has in my opinion be a disaster for the game that continues to hemorrhage. Where the heck has a rule like the so called "No fault Rule" been all these years whilst players have been getting into trouble. The NRL did nothing to fix the leaks in the dam wall and now are trying to hastily plug the holes with band aids and the dam wall is about to break. It's not surprising that Cameron Smith is dirty that Cronulla were not stripped of their premiership because the garbage we have been fed by the NRL about them being salary cap complaint beggars belief. Beattie and Greenberg have well and truly dropped the ball and in my opinion should be replaced. This type of performance would not be tolerated by another large commercial organisation. At lot is at stake here!

 

[Mark from Brisbane]

I’m sure there’s not one of us that thinks the law they are imposing isn’t a step in the right direction BUT my argument all along is purely that of “ innocent until proven guilty”.

And I’m damned if I know how this rule and that one can fit in the same page.

 

[yokahontas]

Well I don’t know whether Milligan’s eye socket is made of balsa wood but at least you have proved one thing: pop psychology reigns supreme in the court of public opinion!

Or, y’know, maybe some of us studied actual psychology - and criminology - at uni...

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

Or, y’know, maybe some of us studied actual psychology - and criminology - at uni...

Well why didn’t you say so earlier?

I had been a tad concerned, given we’ve heard nothing all week except about damage to reputations in the context of the presumption of innocence. Not to mention talk of social media owners being sued for letting defamatory material get posted.

So given your burning need to publish your expert findings that Bird is a glasser, this does change things somewhat. True, I suspect mainstream media still wouldn’t touch your claim with a bargepole. But Silvertails is so small, Bird probably would never bother suing, so it’s worth it to get the truth out there.

And who knows, maybe the presumption of innocence doesn’t even apply if people who studied at uni are convinced you are guilty? Oh well, it’s probably only Dan who bears any risk anyway.

 

[Woodsie]

Question for the educated ... is the right to the presumption of Innocence ... an actual "right" as in a legal right or is it just a by-product of our legal system ...

I ask because I know you cannot be contracted to perform any illegal activity ... so I wonder whether you can legally be contracted to waive one of your human "rights" .? ... just wondering ...

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

It is not a right it is a presumption of our criminal law. Meaning you never have to prove you are innocent, you are presumed to be, unless and until proven guilty.

 

[globaleagle]

Question for the educated ... is the right to the presumption of Innocence ... an actual "right" as in a legal right or is it just a by-product of our legal system ...

I ask because I know you cannot be contracted to perform any illegal activity ... so I wonder whether you can legally be contracted to waive one of your human "rights" .? ... just wondering ...

It's the vibe...

or the Magna Carta.

One of those two.

 

[Bearfax]

Question for the educated ... is the right to the presumption of Innocence ... an actual "right" as in a legal right or is it just a by-product of our legal system ...

I ask because I know you cannot be contracted to perform any illegal activity ... so I wonder whether you can legally be contracted to waive one of your human "rights" .? ... just wondering ...

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.

 

[The Who]

Bearfax, that was informative and confirms what many of us on here have been saying. I quote:

• Acknowledge the difference between a person who has been “charged” with an offence and a person who has been “convicted” of an offence. If a person has been charged, they haven’t had an opportunity to appear in court and defend their position. Further, a person can be charged but ultimately not convicted so any attempt to take action against an employee in those circumstances, for example, terminating their employment, could be viewed as premature and therefore unreasonable.

The NRL's can call its stand down policy a 'No Fault' rule but it implies to the vast majority of people, potential jury and the potential judge that the player is guilty, imo.

 

[StuBoot]

Can I just ask...
DeBellin is saying he's not guilty /innocent.
Is he saying that
a) nothing at all happened or
b) something happened but it was consensual

 

[The Who]

Can I just ask...
DeBellin is saying he's not guilty /innocent.
Is he saying that
a) nothing at all happened or
b) something happened but it was consensual

When it gets to trial the prosecution will try to prove that a crime has been committed. There has to be reasonable doubt.
de Belin doesn't have to take the witness stand. If the defence feels that the prosecution hasn't proved its case then de Belin doesn't have to say anything.
We won't hear any more from de Belin until it gets to trial, and then we may never hear his and his co-acsuseds' side of the charge.

 

[MadMarcus]

It's the vibe...

or the Magna Carta.

One of those two.

I think you mean Cathy Freeman.

I’ve never heard of that Magna bird, but her parents could’ve at least named her after a better car.

 

[urulion]

I have said it before and I will say it again, the NRL are in a heap of difficulties. I sincerely hope that clubs, players, and player advocates stand up to the Mafia like run NRL. I have no other words to describe Greenturd and Beattie apart from 'shame on you both'. More importantly Beattie coming out and stating that he was a lawyer (no big deal), but in reliance to those formal comments he should know, or ought to know that the policies created are way beyond their scope of power (ultra vires), and a complete encroachment and restriction on an individual's Human Rights and the right to self determination.


Firstly, I congratulate JDB on taking a stand and all clubs and players should be supporting a class-action against the NRL. 'If you fail to stand up for your rights you don't have any'.


NO FAULT RULE


If JDB's legal team do not go down this path, at some point this will come to fruition.

Legal Interpretation- a policy is a rule and has no bearing on statutes (law), so it can only be considered by consent and agreement. However, if that policy breaches a fundamental right the policy is problematic.


When we apply Legal interpretation to the "No Fault Rule' it has been well established by the courts that the purpose is essential to depict the legislation, statute, subordinate legislation, and even a crumby policy. This will give the interpreter a clearer understanding, so the purposive approach under the golden rule (The purpose) is favoured.


The purpose of the 'No Fault Rule' is to stand down players without any fault, simply because an allegation has come about and this so called allegation brings the game into disrepute. This policy is very easily dispensed with as the two NRL clowns very cleverly did not want to accuse any player (hence full pay and training), but more importantly made it a contractual argument and potential loss which includes the facets of tort law.


If a player has 'NO FAULT' as the title of the policy suggests there is no feasible explanation to stand him down, further, if the player has 'NO FAULT' it is impossible to bring the game into disrepute whatsoever. This policy is flawed and set to fail whichever path the NRL mafia wish to argue for the policy.


ADMINISTRATIVE LAW


It comes as a reminder to the NRL that under admin law one of the major challenges when an administrative body makes a decision, is that it must be free of bias under the BIAS RULE. How has Greenslime been given discretionary powers? from the Commission one can only assume. So from what head of powers, does the commission get the power to delegate a judicial power with discretionary application to encroach on a principle right, when, they themselves have no such powers to delegate a non-existent power in the first instance.

Every single decision made by these clowns would create a bias issue because there is no independence. Even if they were entitled to exercise judicial powers.


Greenturd formally made public that consistency is a fallacy and does not exist. This is the prime argument that he is not suited to make these calls, as he has admitted there will never be consistency, or at the bare minimum express to the audience that he will persist with being as consistent as possible. This is why we have independent bodies that assess these issues and these bodies don't just focus on how much the game will lose if a call is not made to please others, rather, an assessment is made on merits and in conjunction with a players rights and obligations.


JUDICIAL POWER


This function strictly belongs to the courts and even the courts themselves have an extremely hard time to make any decisions that will dispense with a person's right (until they are proven guilty). Parliament makes laws, however there can be no judicial power in the legislation that is passed, because that is purely a function of the court. Now, giving a clown these wonderful powers to hide under a 'NO FAULT' policy is laughable, and the worst attempt of giving a nobody power that goes to his head.


In North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency Limited v Northern Territory [2015] HCA 41 it was agreed by their honours Kiefel, Bell, Gageler, Keane, Nettle and Gordon JJ that;


The legislative assembly of the Northern Territory under the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act 1978 (Cth) purported to confer on the executive of the Northern Territory a power to detain which is penal or punitive in character. This would undermine or interfere with the institutional integrity of the courts.


Waterside Workers Federation of Australia v J W Alexander Ltd [1918] HCA 56


Griffith CJ explains;

The exercise of the power to impose penalties is admittedly an exercise of the judicial power, it follows that if the court itself has no power to impose penalties the power is non-existent


These very short examples outline that penalties are only limited to courts, it is a function of the courts ONLY (hint hint) Does the NRL penalise players??? In Melbourne if passenger's travelled on trains and trams without a ticket they faced on the spot penalty of $80. Until Human Rights Counsel's got involved and defended every person for free. The prosecution were forced to drop nearly every case with representation. The arguments posed where, you guessed it, courts are the only bodies that can/may penalise all the rest is in excess of power.


Human Rights


VIC and the ACT have a charter of human rights, and parliament in QLD last week was passing a charter for QLD. It will not be long before the Human Rights Commission has one Australia Wide. However, there are other treaties in place which are an obligation as signed agreements like the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)


Article 14


1. All persons shall be equal before the courts and tribunals. In the determination of any criminal charge against him, or of his rights and obligations in a suit at law, everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law. The press and the public may be excluded from all or part of a trial for reasons of morals, public order (ordre public) or national security in a democratic society, or when the interest of the private lives of the parties so requires, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice; but any judgement rendered in a criminal case or in a suit at law shall be made public except where the interest of juvenile persons otherwise requires or the proceedings concern matrimonial disputes or the guardianship of children.


2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall have the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. (Emphasis added according to Law not NRL policy)


3. In the determination of any criminal charge against him, everyone shall be entitled to the following minimum guarantees, in full equality: (a) To be informed promptly and in detail in a language which he understands of the nature and cause of the charge against him;


(b) To have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence and to communicate with counsel of his own choosing;


(c) To be tried without undue delay;


(d) To be tried in his presence, and to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing; to be informed, if he does not have legal assistance, of this right; and to have legal assistance assigned to him, in any case where the interests of justice so require, and without payment by him in any such case if he does not have sufficient means to pay for it;


(e) To examine, or have examined, the witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him;


(f) To have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court;


(g) Not to be compelled to testify against himself or to confess guilt.


4. In the case of juvenile persons, the procedure shall be such as will take account of their age and the desirability of promoting their rehabilitation.

5. Everyone convicted of a crime shall have the right to his conviction and sentence being reviewed by a higher tribunal according to law.


6. When a person has by a final decision been convicted of a criminal offence and when subsequently his conviction has been reversed or he has been pardoned on the ground that a new or newly discovered fact shows conclusively that there has been a miscarriage of justice, the person who has suffered punishment as a result of such conviction shall be compensated according to law, unless it is proved that the non-disclosure of the unknown fact in time is wholly or partly attributable to him.


7. No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again for an offence for which he has already been finally convicted or acquitted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of each country.


Article 15

1 . No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time when the criminal offence was committed. If, subsequent to the commission of the offence, provision is made by law for the imposition of the lighter penalty, the offender shall benefit thereby.


2. Nothing in this article shall prejudice the trial and punishment of any person for any act or omission which, at the time when it was committed, was criminal according to the general principles of law recognized by the community of nations.


Article 50


The provisions of the present Covenant shall extend to all parts of federal States without any limitations or exceptions.


This means that Greenturds's policies are included without exception.


I once again congratulate JDB on standing up for what is his right, the NRL have no right to tarnish his name but on the contrary have every right to support each and every player... If he is found guilty and no further recourse for appeal, then, and only then, punish him under all the policies you like. I will be quite excited the day I hear that 2 clowns are stepping down from the NRL, because that is exactly how this saga should eventuate. I think there is enough basic information to crumble the ridiculous policy, but more importantly crumble those behind it.


Good night to all supporters and hope Des can turn things around for us this year!!

 

[Dan]

It is not a right it is a presumption of our criminal law. Meaning you never have to prove you are innocent, you are presumed to be, unless and until proven guilty.

The word presumption is probably the sticky point in the discussion because it has probably lost meaning in today's vocabulary and should probably be changed to "assumed" or "considered" law has to keep up with linguistic evolution even if the latter is detrimental.....no doublespeak now

 

[urulion]

Question for the educated ... is the right to the presumption of Innocence ... an actual "right" as in a legal right or is it just a by-product of our legal system ...

I ask because I know you cannot be contracted to perform any illegal activity ... so I wonder whether you can legally be contracted to waive one of your human "rights" .? ... just wondering ...

Hi Woodsie hope you are well.

To answer your question in short, you can NOT be contracted to waive away a human right. Legality is a fundamental part of any contractual dealings like the offer, acceptance and consideration. If a clause of a contract cannot be read down and remain on foot after the breaching clause is omitted, then the contract is inoperative. Any contract which is drafted contrary to any legal provision (statute) is void, voidable, or unenforceable ab initio (right from the start).

The 'presumption of innocence' is a presumption because not all criminal offenses are dealt with in the same way. For example; 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 funny thing is that for a criminal offense to take place there must be a victim or an injured party, there is really no corpus delicti to substantiate that traffic matters are a criminal offense. Considering that these traffic matters are huge revenue raisers for govt they are considered quasi-criminal (sort of criminal).

This is why there is a presumption of innocence, because if that presumption was a given right for all criminal matters the prosecution would struggle tremendously to prove strict liability offenses (as they are heard in the criminal jurisdiction and carry criminal responsibility).

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

The word presumption is probably the sticky point in the discussion because it has probably lost meaning in today's vocabulary and should probably be changed to "assumed" or "considered" law has to keep up with linguistic evolution even if the latter is detrimental.....no doublespeak now

Easier perhaps to think of it in terms of the onus of proof - which in criminal matters falls on the prosecution. The prosecution has the onus of proving their case, meaning prove each element of the offence beyond reasonable doubt. If they can't do that, if there is any reasonable doubt, then the law says you are not guilty.
As a few have pointed out here already, you don't get found or proved 'innocent', only not proved to be guilty, and therefore still enjoy the presumption of innocence. A finding of not guilty does not mean you can't still be treated with suspicion in relation to what was alleged. But it does (at least in my non-expert opinion) put you in murky waters defamation-wise if you go publishing statements saying someone is guilty of something for which they have been found not guilty.