Jack de Belin court case

[StuBoot]

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.

It's a tough one.
A one size fits all approach is unfair on some and fair on most, it's the way of the world mostly.

The Tigers chairman was on the radio this morning and said that whilst the NRL's policy may seem unfair it is not unlawful.

Most governing bodies, boards or employers would stand down an employee if it felt that certain allegations could tarnish/damage their brand or be bad for business regardless - and they'd probably do it without pay.
Whether they are named or not, word would get out and it's up to each organisation to determine their reputational damage.

I get the "innocent until proven guilty" rule of law BUT look at the flip side.
What if (and it's a big what if) the NRL let him play on, mingle with fans/sponsors etc - would Joe Public want his kids looking up to him, get an autograph etc ?
Can you imagine the opposition crowds? We saw it - and still see it with Snake.
What if similar allegations were levelled again?
Or worse?
What about the poor girl that sees him earning his $$$ and living like nothing has happened?

Not saying he's innocent or guilty but once it was challenged in court and deemed lawful then the NRL has no other option, they don't determine how long before something goes to court unfortunately.
Yep, one mistake has cost him so much already but it can certainly be a lot more.

 

[yokahontas]

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.

Sure, innocent until proven guilty under the law - but there are plenty of other employers who would, and do, stand down employees until there’s a verdict on charges like this (and lots of other types of charges that make potential interaction with the public, kids, even colleagues, a tricky area). He’s been on full pay the whole time, lots of others aren’t so lucky. And being able to continue training with his teammates makes it more of a ‘restricted duties’ situation than a proper stand-down anyway - much like ADF members, cops etc shuffling paper in an office if they’re facing AVOs or similar that restrict their access to firearms until found not guilty.

 

[Kevinward777]

Sure, innocent until proven guilty under the law - but there are plenty of other employers who would, and do, stand down employees until there’s a verdict on charges like this (and lots of other types of charges that make potential interaction with the public, kids, even colleagues, a tricky area). He’s been on full pay the whole time, lots of others aren’t so lucky. And being able to continue training with his teammates makes it more of a ‘restricted duties’ situation than a proper stand-down anyway - much like ADF members, cops etc shuffling paper in an office if they’re facing AVOs or similar that restrict their access to firearms until found not guilty.

Three years is a quarter of his entire playing career in football taken away. There needs to be consideration given to both parties here. If he is found guilty then he will be punished accordingly by the law. If he is found to be innocent then he has in fact become the victim. The expense of legal fees and damage to potential future earnings can never be recouped. His reputation will be forever tarnished.

If the Brett Stewart incident occurred under this same ruling body he would have likely missed two entire seasons. Just because a girl and her criminal father saw an opportunity for a scam. How can that be defined as justice?

That's the reality of this rule.

 

[mave]

If the Brett Stewart incident occurred under this same ruling body he would have likely missed two entire seasons. Just because a girl and her criminal father saw an opportunity for a scam. How can that be defined as justice?

That's the reality of this rule.

Haha...B Stewart keeps getting brought up, and no-one who is advocating for the stand down rule wants to touch it.

I wonder why?

 

[wombatgc]

They will learn from their mistakes .... there will be no girl invited to spoil the celebration next time ..

Sphincter increase by 2cm.

 

[Nordburg]

Three years is a quarter of his entire playing career in football taken away. There needs to be consideration given to both parties here. If he is found guilty then he will be punished accordingly by the law. If he is found to be innocent then he has in fact become the victim. The expense of legal fees and damage to potential future earnings can never be recouped. His reputation will be forever tarnished.

If the Brett Stewart incident occurred under this same ruling body he would have likely missed two entire seasons. Just because a girl and her criminal father saw an opportunity for a scam. How can that be defined as justice?

That's the reality of this rule.

Would Stewart’s charge seen him get a 10+ year sentence if found guilty?

 

[mave]

Would Stewart’s charge seen him get a 10+ year sentence if found guilty?

Does that matter ?

The bull**** policy was also able to be enacted at Greenburgs discretion....which is my main gripe against it.

How can the NRL be discretionary on matters that have not been tested in court.

When was the CEO of the day decreed to be judge, jury and executioner?

 

[Kevinward777]

Would Stewart’s charge seen him get a 10+ year sentence if found guilty?

Brett was falsely charged with sexual misconduct against a young woman. The rule applies to ten year sentences and crimes against women. I present you with Dylan WALKER... so yes, he would have been stood down. The rule needs to go.

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

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?

Maybe you know more judges, for me I'd take my chances with a jury, thank you!
Hey who's to say you wouldn't get a judge like Greenberg? 'Look into my eyes'
😱

 

[yokahontas]

Three years is a quarter of his entire playing career in football taken away. There needs to be consideration given to both parties here. If he is found guilty then he will be punished accordingly by the law. If he is found to be innocent then he has in fact become the victim. The expense of legal fees and damage to potential future earnings can never be recouped. His reputation will be forever tarnished.

If the Brett Stewart incident occurred under this same ruling body he would have likely missed two entire seasons. Just because a girl and her criminal father saw an opportunity for a scam. How can that be defined as justice?

That's the reality of this rule.

What about this bloke?

Redirect Notice

Should he have been allowed to keep working, on the off chance that he’s found not guilty?

De Belin’s football career had a time cap regardless of any stand-down period, or any time out due to injury, suspensions, personal/family reasons or whatever. He has continued to receive his salary of (reportedly) close to $600K p.a., and apparently there is also a contract extension on the table if found not guilty. So he would have a pretty hard time arguing loss of earnings, future earnings etc just based on that. And you can’t count ‘potential’ rep bonuses etc because there’s no guarantee of selection, ever - and no guarantee you wouldn’t have been injured or suspended even if you were the most likely player to be selected in your position.

Old mate above? I doubt he will ever work as a swim teacher again, guilty or not - nobody is going to take the risk on him. And that’s a career that, had he wanted, he potentially could have pursued until retirement age.

These guys need to wake up to themselves and recognise how privileged they are to earn the money they do, for playing a game that other people (on far lower incomes!) actually pay to participate in. And like it or not, part of the reason they are excessively remunerated the way they are is because of the public profile and the money generated from selling a product to corporate stakeholders as well as fans. I have sympathy for the poor bastards who never put a foot wrong but have that golden opportunity taken away from them by circumstances beyond their control (usually injury); I have zero for those who take advantage of it, behave like total arseholes, and then want to cry foul when they are rightly punished for biting the hand that feeds them.

 

[XV-1]

Brett was falsely charged with sexual misconduct against a young woman. The rule applies to ten year sentences and crimes against women. I present you with Dylan WALKER... so yes, he would have been stood down. The rule needs to go.

Dylan Walker was stood down on the no fault BS policy.

 

[Brisbane Tragic]

Dylan Walker was stood down on the no fault BS policy.

Yes somehow I am wrongly or rightly firmly in the court of innocent until proven guilty. This "policy" is just a PR exercise by the NRL to appease sponsors and without being sexist the female supporters/Mums etc. Nothing more nothing less - that is the reality. I just simply cannot for the life of me understand how the proof of guilt, on issues which have nothing to do with playing football, is not the overriding principle. Anyone associated with Manly and the disgrace of what happened to Brett Stewart should have very long and clear memories. Both JDB and Fainu should be playing. This is not a position I take because I am a Manly supporter. This is about fairness and accepting the verdict of the day in court. That verdict alone again unless it is a breach of contract or something to do with playing football where a club/NRL can take their own action should decide if a player is stood away from the game and their career. The fact JDB was not found guilty ... yet ...and their is a hung jury certainly says to me that at least some of the peers on that jury didn't believe they could convict him of the charges. Just why then is a man who might well be found not guilty (which is very different to whether he actually did what was said ie he might in fact have committed the act but the evidence just doesn't support that) be deprived of playing rugby league until a court gets around to deciding? He might well be getting paid so that might lessen the impact. He might well be a grub in the court of high morals but .... It all just doesn't sit well with me. Sorry about that. Just my view and deride and attack away - I certainly wont entertain defending my position. Position stated - moving on!

 

[wombatgc]

Does that matter ?

The bull**** policy was also able to be enacted at Greenburgs discretion....which is my main gripe against it.

How can the NRL be discretionary on matters that have not been tested in court.

When was the CEO of the day decreed to be judge, jury and executioner?

That is exactly my beef with the policy. Some bald headed fuuckwit can still have a bullshiit rule in place long after he’s gone. Abdo needs to man up, and squash anything Greenturd came up with. Grow some balls you political hack.You’re starting to sound as bad as Annersley.

 

[mave]

So just to clarify with the bleeding hearts....

JDB stood down until the case is finalised either way. Yay NRL!!

Brett Stewart ????

I won't hold my breath for a response.

 

[Shoe1]

Maybe you know more judges, for me I'd take my chances with a jury, thank you!
Hey who's to say you wouldn't get a judge like Greenberg? 'Look into my eyes'
😱

If I’m innocent I would opt for a judge. If I were guilty I’d select the jury option.

 

[KNUCKLES]

In this digital age I dont think the police have to "tap" mobile phones they can simply request the records from whichever service provider their subject's phone service is with.

Everything is recorded now.

Heaps legal

 

[Shoe1]

In this digital age I dont think the police have to "tap" mobile phones they can simply request the records from whichever service provider their subject's phone service is with.

Everything is recorded now.

There’s probably a record of everything you’ve ever posted on this site.

 

[yokahontas]

So just to clarify with the bleeding hearts....

JDB stood down until the case is finalised either way. Yay NRL!!

Brett Stewart ????

I won't hold my breath for a response.

I’ll give you one.

That kind of entirely confected case is very, very unlikely to happen. In the rare event that it does, there are some avenues for financial compensation (some of which Stewart took), and there should be more. There should also be much, much bigger consequences for anyone involved in making that kind of false allegation - but that is an area where the legal system needs reform, not the NRL’s (or any other employer’s) policy.

Suspension on full pay is not the impost people are making it out to be; in fact it also shelters the player (or employee) from public ridicule and backlash, and allows them time to focus on their legal issues.

One outlying case is not a reason to give a get out of jail free card to every douchebag who behaves like an absolute twat and finds themselves at odds with the legal system as a result.

And FWIW, I also don’t think there should be players running around who have serious criminal convictions - or domestic violence history, either - behind them. These guys are in an incredibly privileged position, that potentially allows them to set themselves up for life if they play their cards right. They get more than enough education about how to behave, and if they can’t appreciate that position of privilege and great fortune and toe the line then that opportunity should be given to someone who can.

 

[Ranga]

@mave, I feel like I am leading with my chin here with you as for most it is a black and white issue, but here it goes...

While the effect of the stand down policy is the same as a suspension in terms of a player not being able to play footy, the stand down policy is different to a situation where the NRL finds a player 'guilty' of conduct and suspends them (e.g., Snake). For JDB, Hayne and Manase, it's the severity of the charges that triggered the policy (I'll get to the NRL discretionary component shortly) and not the NRL's assessment of what is alleged to have happened. There is no suspension in the sense that the NRL has found them guilty of conduct relating to the incident and applied a penalty in judgement, like they did with Snake. And again in contrast to Snake, the trigger for the policy to be invoked was the severity of the charges (11+ years jail as a maximum term or whatever it is), which is (a) objective, (b) targeted only at allegations of a serious crime being committed and therefore charges more likely to tarnish the image of the game and (c) capable of being consistently applied.

The policy is not without flaws, which is not surprising given how rushed it was. As others have said, there is an issue with how long it takes for matters to get to trial. There is also an issue in my mind relating to how the policy had retrospective application. And without doubt there is an issue where the NRL CEO can exercise discretion to apply the policy to a player charged with a crime that doesn't satisfy the mandatory (i.e., objective) stand down criteria - that I cannot support.

But the NRL says that the stand down policy is necessary to protect its legitimate interests, and the NRL's interests are on this point aligned with the players as a whole - i.e., to make $$. I don't think it can be denied that the NRL came under severe pressure from its stakeholders following these laying of serious charges against at least 2 players during the Summer from Hell and revenue loss was a real possibility without it taking action. The court said it was reasonable and not unlawful. The clubs agree with it (including Manly) and the RLPA is hardly jumping up and down about it (I honestly expected more from them).

I have worked in and around a number of boards of large companies for a few years now and I can assure you that these types of policy decisions are only ever made where the board feels backed into a corner as they try to balance all of the competing priorities. I bet there were members of the Commission that felt uneasy about it but thought that it was the only way forward and, if a challenge was successful in court, they would have been fine with that outcome. But as I said, the court said it was not unlawful so here it is.

So, provided they remove the discretionary component, I can get my head around why the policy is in place. There is always the risk of someone fabricating allegations, but all players are now clear and agree when signing their playing contract as to what will happen if they are charged with a serious offence.

Many will disagree with what I have written above, so be it. I don't see these types of issues in black and white - just a mass of grey.

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

I would love the no-fault stand-down rule to be scrapped, but if I'm honest, the main reason I want it scrapped is because I want Manly to win and we seem to lose key players to this rule.

It's been spelled out multiple times here that its not only the NRL, but also many many businesses and institutions that suspend people charged with serious offences. It's not really controversial. It is clear there is damage to the game's image with each player atrocity, and that damage comes at a dollar cost.

Yes the automatic stand-down rule has an arbitrary trigger point, and the discretionary stand-down has no principled guidelines around it. But at the time, the sheer number of incidents coming to HQ's notice pretty much forced the NRL to do something. The serious criminal cases that made the papers were merely the tip of the iceberg. A lot of the complaints were about various misogynist behaviours. A small minority of players were tarnishing the rest, and the game.

As for the Brett Stewart case, that is an exception in many ways and doesn't carry much weight as a reason to scrap the no-fault stand-down. If something like that happened now, then there would be a very unlucky player missing a lot of games. But its still worth remembering that it was only Brett's serious injuries that spared him (and the game) from the awkward scenario of him getting booed and abused each week as he played on while under ongoing prosecution for sexual assault.