Jack de Belin court case

SeaEagleRock8 said:
I was just commenting on you speculating that the DPP decision for a new trial might depend on what the jury split was. But the DPP wouldn't know the split, no-one does. That's all I meant.
Click to expand...
I would say the DPP would have a pretty good feel for the likely split based on their view of how the case transpired. Same as the defence - they would have a pretty decent feel for how they think the jury might have voted based on the different "evidence" and cross examinations.
 
IMHO, an unsatisfactory result for both the plaintiff and the defendants; both have suffered in different ways during the whole process.

Mark from Brisbane said:
What a **** up!!

Can you imagine the poor girl having to go through the whole thing AGAIN!!
Click to expand...

She and the guys now have come to terms with not being believed, as well as the trauma, allegedly, suffered on the night.

Also, the defendants they are still under suspicion by a large portion of the public and after this aborted trial always will be.
 
Last edited:
Shane4500 said:
I would say the DPP would have a pretty good feel for the likely split based on their view of how the case transpired. Same as the defence - they would have a pretty decent feel for how they think the jury might have voted based on the different "evidence" and cross examinations.
Click to expand...
Maybe although in my experience having been in plenty of jury trials I find it seriously impossible to predict. They are human beings after all! And that is the view of pretty much everyone on both sides whenever we've spoken about it. The mysteries of how juries work is quite unlike anything else I can think of, and of course each jury is different. I'm sure some don't even pay attention to the evidence and just go on gut feel, others the opposite etc.
I reckon the DPP will be focussing on the evidence and how it came out in court. If the complainant is not keen for another go then that is a big consideration as well.
 
SeaEagleRock8 said:
Maybe although in my experience having been in plenty of jury trials I find it seriously impossible to predict. They are human beings after all! And that is the view of pretty much everyone on both sides whenever we've spoken about it. The mysteries of how juries work is quite unlike anything else I can think of, and of course each jury is different. I'm sure some don't even pay attention to the evidence and just go on gut feel, others the opposite etc.
I reckon the DPP will be focussing on the evidence and how it came out in court. If the complainant is not keen for another go then that is a big consideration as well.
Click to expand...
Just as I said - " I reckon the DPP will be focussing on the evidence and how it came out in court". - I just said basically the same thing. Anyways moving on I am learning people are very much about semantics on here.
 
So, in essence, the woman at the centre of the allegations now has to potentially go through the entire ordeal again, bringing up another bout of emotional trauma, etc...or give up, and it was all for nothing.

And the males at the centre of the allegations are still having their name tarnished by the NRL, with their bull**** policy. Also missing out on potential earnings, etc, and also going through the emotional trauma, etc.
Or they drop the case, and they went through it all for nothing.


What a seriously fabulous system we have going.
Just so much winning!
 
mave said:
So, in essence, the woman at the centre of the allegations now has to potentially go through the entire ordeal again, bringing up another bout of emotional trauma, etc...or give up, and it was all for nothing.

And the males at the centre of the allegations are still having their name tarnished by the NRL, with their bull**** policy. Also missing out on potential earnings, etc, and also going through the emotional trauma, etc.
Or they drop the case, and they went through it all for nothing.


What a seriously fabulous system we have going.
Just so much winning!
Click to expand...
How have the NRL tarnished their name?JDB was the only one doing the tarnishing
 
Nordburg said:
How have the NRL tarnished their name?JDB was the only one doing the tarnishing
Click to expand...

The NRL are discretionally standing players down under their made-up stand down "no fault" policy.
If you think that this has no effect on the players reputation, then I disagree....see Brett Stewart as example 1....and his subsequent reaction to David Gallop suspending him for 4 games.

And in other examples, like Matt Lodge, the game closes ranks around him, and he is free to play, despite his arguably more despicable actions, also involving a female, as well as her child.
Russell Packer being another.
 
Can both parties now choose to have a retrial heard by a judge only?
I think that a judge has greater chance of sorting out the fact from the fiction, particularly in such cases of he-said, she-said.
There is every chance another jury would be unlikely to come up with a finding, whereas a judge* would deliver a verdict, one way or the other. There also would be enormous cost savings to the taxpayer.
* In fact, why couldn't the judge in a case be empowered to give a verdict when there is a hung jury? Isn't it time to modernise the legal system?
 
mave said:
The NRL are discretionally standing players down under their made-up stand down "no fault" policy.
If you think that this has no effect on the players reputation, then I disagree....see Brett Stewart as example 1....and his subsequent reaction to David Gallop suspending him for 4 games.

And in other examples, like Matt Lodge, the game closes ranks around him, and he is free to play, despite his arguably more despicable actions, also involving a female, as well as her child.
Russell Packer being another.
Click to expand...
As apportioned between the NRL's stand down policy and the charges for a very serious crime being prosecuted by the DDP, which do you think has the greatest effect on the player's reputation? At least for me, JDB's reputation is tarnished as a result of the allegations that form the basis of the charges (not to mention the facts established in the trial), not because the NRL has stood him down.

And while I understand the comparisons to Packer and Lodge, three things I think are relevant. First, the stand down policy is not designed to punish but protect the NRL's commercial interests, which the Federal Court said was reasonable and not unlawful. Second, both spent time out of the game and were deemed to have sufficiently rehabilitated so it is not as if a blind eye was turned to their conduct. Third, and probably most importantly, Packer's and Lodge's conduct occurred before the 'Summer of Hell' where in a short space of time JDB, Hayne and Walker were charged with crimes where in each case it was a woman who was/is the alleged victim.

Like others have pointed out, the major issue is the time it takes for the matter to be resolved in the courts, but that is not within the NRL's control. As for the stand down policy itself and the rationale for it, I have become increasingly comfortable with it although I acknowledge I am swimming against the tide.
 
If people think the stand down rule doesn't influence jurors before a case goes to trial they are kidding themselves.

The rule must be scrapped and the people who run the game need to start focusing on real issues within the code. Like the farcical salary cap, country footy and the knee jerk policy decisions that lead to poorly conceived rule changes. The blatant favouritism of certain clubs and the glaring inconsistencies they expect the fans to just put up with each year.

The players are the business... without them there is no product.
 
mave said:
The NRL are discretionally standing players down under their made-up stand down "no fault" policy.
If you think that this has no effect on the players reputation, then I disagree....see Brett Stewart as example 1....and his subsequent reaction to David Gallop suspending him for 4 games.

And in other examples, like Matt Lodge, the game closes ranks around him, and he is free to play, despite his arguably more despicable actions, also involving a female, as well as her child.
Russell Packer being another.
Click to expand...
JDB tarnished his own reputation by cheating on his partner.Different administration running the game when Stewart has wrongly accused.Whilst I disagree with Lodge and Packer’s return to play,they spent considerable time out of the game.The stand down policy was brought in because the game had had enough of the moronic behaviour of some players that were unfairly tarnishing the game and the players that do behave.A line in the sand had to be drawn,if they don’t like the rule,don’t put themselves in a position to activate the clause,not hard
 
Last edited:
Nordburg said:
JDB tarnished his own reputation by cheating on his partner.Different administration running the game when Stewart has wrongly accused.Whilst I disagree with Lodge and Packer’s return to play,they spent considerable time out of the game.The stand down policy was brought in because the game had had enough of the moronic behaviour of some players that were unfairly tarnishing the game and the players that do behave.A line in the sand had to be drawn,if they don’t like the rule,don’t put themselves in a position to activate the clause,not hard
Click to expand...

How could DeBelin not put himself in a position to activate the NRL stand down clause?
He was the guinea pig wasnt he ?
 
No JDB fan here , he’s a wife cheating prick BUT I just can’t get past the “ innocent until proven guilty “ rule of law in this country.

If the accused pleads guilty first you and is just waiting sentencing then yes must be stood down BUT if the accused is defending the charge then the presumption of innocence clause should be the go to.

I disagree totally with the stand down policy and have since Brett Stewart days where he was given a month suspension before this policy was introduced.
 
IMHO, the law surrounding sexual assault is wrong.

At present, only the victims are protected by having they names forever suppressed, this I generally agree with(not if the allegations are false or vindictive, which could/would be hard to determine, or for personal gain, which may be debatable), the accused are named immediately and that can’t ever be erased from the Public record.

The names of the accused should be withheld until they are convicted, there would IMHO, not generally be a huge risk in them continuing to live their lives as normal until the charges were proven. If they are found not guilty, then there’s no need for them to ever be named. If the law was framed this way, then JdB and Sinclair could have played on until, or if, they were convicted.

The “No fault stand down“ rule (but with the perception of guilt in the public’s mind) was introduced, and unsuccessfully challenged in Court, to protect the game’s image and buisness, which is understandable.

However, it really throws the players under the bus in regard to their image and reputation.

The NRL wouldn’t have suffered reputational damage as the names of players wouldn’t be out there in the media until a conviction was recorded, then it would be the same as every other business who has a person convicted of an offence.

Just my opinion and I guess there’s other who believe the current system is best or possibly others who believe that all parties should be named.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Members online

Total: 311 (members: 10, guests: 301)

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
10
Guests online
301
Total visitors
311
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Latest posts

Newest members

Stay Connected

Back
Top Bottom