Gift hearing adjourned to Thursday night

[ManlyBacker]

Sea Eagles lock Glenn Stewart was granted a 24-hour adjournment in his judiciary hearing on Wednesday night at Fox Studios.


Read the full article

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

We started with an SC, now we got a QC, if that falls through let's go for KFC.

 

[Jatz Crackers]

If our QC follows the proper legal ABCs then Gift will not be DOA & can POQ from any penalty & the good news spread across the world via WWW on NBC.

 

[Shoe1]

I hate the hearings being at fox studios, they should be at Nsw leagues club on Phillip st. Smack bang in the legal heart of Sydney.

 

[Ceagle]

Triple M are reporting both referees have been called for g stewarts judiciary hearing tonight.

 

[Dan]

Can I clarify in this thread for everyone who seems to be misunderstanding things?

- Pleading guilty does not lessen your charge, when you have been referred directly to the judiciary.
- The difference is that when you are charged, if you take the early plea and don't go to the judiciary you get -25%. If you don't get the chance to put in a an early guilty plea, it makes no difference if you plead guilty or not guilty

 

[Stevo]

I would also presume that pleading 'not guilty' would likely not add to your penalty either.

 

[Dan]

exactly. Sorry was the point I was trying to make. I was on phone call as I was finishing it

 

[susan]

Dan

It is not a guaranteed 25% reduction like a normal guilty plea as you rightly suggest but it is taken into account under the principles of natural justice that apply to administrative hearings. i.e not set in stone but remorse and acceptance of the charge is considered re the sentence.

 

[WAMF]

Well thank goodness we now have the services of the 'best in the business', to sort out all the crap.

 

[Rex]

Thanks Dan. By "everyone who doesn't understand" you mean the media, right?

Here's the facts as I see them:

1. Blair got 2 weeks for a third-man-in uppercut on a player (Lussick) who it's agreed had done nothing wrong, and who had his arms pinned by a another Storm player.

2. It is also agreed that prior to being approached by Blair, Glenn Stewart was incorrectly sin-binned and had done nothing wrong. It is agreed that Stewart had acted coolly in the earlier confrontation seeking to stop escalation.

3. Stewart's response to Blair's in-your-face, physical confrontation is all he should be judged on, not what any other players did. It was Blair who confronted Stewart to within a couple of inches of their faces, not vice versa. Stewart never moved forward. Blair, moments before, had bashed a player who had his arms pinned, was clearly not of a cool mind, and confronted Stewart aggressively.

4. [Edit] - Point 4 deleted following Dan's feedback below

5. Ignore the over-the-top agenda-driven media hype and Blair's lawyer's pleadings, which are easily seen through. Instead looking at it objectively and coolly, Stewart's momentary response to a perceived direct personal threat (i.e. not third-man-in, and not of a player pinned helplessly) was less serious than what Blair got 2 weeks for.

 

[Dan]

Thanks Dan. By "everyone who doesn't understand" you mean the media, right?

Here's the facts as I see them:

1. Blair got 2 weeks for a third-man-in uppercut on a player (Lussick) who it's agreed had done nothing wrong, and who had his arms pinned by a another Storm player.

2. It is also agreed that prior to being approached by Blair, Glenn Stewart was incorrectly sin-binned and had done nothing wrong. It is agreed that Stewart had acted coolly in the earlier confrontation seeking to stop escalation.

3. Stewart's response to Blair's in-your-face, physical confrontation is all he should be judged on, not what any other players did. It was Blair who confronted Stewart to within a couple of inches of their faces, not vice versa. Stewart never moved forward. Blair, moments before, had bashed a player who had his arms pinned, was clearly not of a cool mind, and confronted Stewart aggressively.

4. Stewart hit no-one and did no damage to anyone, and stopped as soon as he was no longer under threat.

5. Ignore the over-the-top agenda-driven media hype and Blair's lawyer's pleadings, which are easily seen through. Instead looking at it objectively and coolly, Stewart's momentary response to a perceived direct personal threat (i.e. not third-man-in, and not of a player pinned helplessly) was less serious than what Blair got 2 weeks for.

point 4 is incorrect. He jumps back in once blair is on the ground and swings a few.

3 weeks is fair IMO and is what he should get and then we can all move on with our lives

 

[Jatz Crackers]

I agree with how Rex views this.

The issue that causes difficulty and that our legal team needs to address is the probability that the panel will look on Glens case in isolation of the second incident. If taken in context of both melees then Gifts case takes on a whole new meaning and deserves either a reduced penalty in comparison to Blair or dismissal IMO.

This delay in the hearing and if the two incidents are walked through step by step creates the best oportunity for dismissal and since the pleading is not guilty we are handling this in the best way possible.

 

[Jethro]

I agree with how Rex views this.

The issue that causes difficulty and that our legal team needs to address is the probability that the panel will look on Glens case in isolation of the second incident. If taken in context of both melees then Gifts case takes on a whole new meaning and deserves either a reduced penalty in comparison to Blair or dismissal IMO.

This delay in the hearing and if the two incidents are walked through step by step creates the best oportunity for dismissal and since the pleading is not guilty we are handling this in the best way possible.

I like your way of thinking Jatz

 

[WAMF]

I believe the only chance that Glenn has of escaping suspension or being let off without charge, would be over a technicality, not over the actual evidence or even the circumstances leading up to that point. The judiciary are not going to let Glenn walk out of there without punishment so long as they have any say in the matter.

 

[Rex]

point 4 is incorrect. He jumps back in once blair is on the ground and swings a few.

Have checked at the video. Yes, you're right about my point 4 being incorrect. No you're wrong about Glenn "jumping back in". Glenn was brought down with Blair and the fighting continued on the ground.

 

[The Eagle]

point 4 is incorrect. He jumps back in once blair is on the ground and swings a few.

Have checked at the video. Yes, you're right about my point 4 being incorrect. No you're wrong about Glenn "jumping back in". Glenn was brought down with Blair and the fighting continued on the ground.

The judiciary only gets to make a call on the 1st 3 seconds,anything after that is as they say open slather

 

[mcatt]

He won't get less than Blair's 3 weeks. The Rugby League world would blow up if he got off lighter than Blair for the second fight. All we have to hope for is that they don't go after Glenn harder because he threw the first punch.

 

[Rex]

What's the betting if the judiciary goes unreasonably hard against Glenn, that other legal avenues are used to resolve any dispute?

 

[Ceagle]

If Glenn gets more then 3 i expect the club to appeal the charge