Jack de Belin court case

The Who said:
I can see your point of view. My basic objection is that any such rule assumes the guilt of a player before they have a chance to clear their name. And, as we know, this can take three years.
The Police don't always get charges correct, as we often see.
Should the NRL act as a kangaroo court, punishing a player without knowing the facts?
Click to expand...
I don’t see it as presuming guilt, although I can understand how some people might think so with the retrospective application to JDB and Manase. But otherwise and going forward, it’s just the rules.
 
Someone on another forum mentioned the Brett Stewart case, I wasn't too familiar it and just read a couple of articles on it. Absolutely disgusted and appalled he was ever charged. I think there needs to be some fundamental changes to the law regarding he said, she said cases where there is no evidence or independent witnesses. We seem to be at a point where the victim is never doubted. Why would someone make that up? I'm obviously being naïve and idealistic here, but I would think investigating officers would be horrified at the thought of throwing someone in jail for 5+ years when they are unsure of their guilt or innocence. There needs to be be zero doubt. This may mean more guilty people don't get convicted, but isn't that a preference to innocence people being jailed?
 
Ranga said:
I don’t see it as presuming guilt, although I can understand how some people might think so with the retrospective application to JDB and Manase. But otherwise and going forward, it’s just the rules.
Click to expand...

I get your point Ranga ... what I always come back to when I look at both sides is .. that the presumption of innocence is not just a rule, ... it is a vital and fundamental pillar of our society and legal system ... it is one of the most important rights that separate us as citizens of a democracy from the citizens of third world dictatorships ...

If given a choice between preserving our fundamental right ... and preserving the image of a sport ... I always come back to the presumption of innocence ..
 
Woodsie said:
I get your point Ranga ... what I always come back to when I look at both sides is .. that the presumption of innocence is not just a rule, ... it is a vital and fundamental pillar of our society and legal system ... it is one of the most important rights that separate us as citizens of a democracy from the citizens of third world dictatorships ...

If given a choice between preserving our fundamental right ... and preserving the image of a sport ... I always come back to the presumption of innocence ..
Click to expand...
The retrospective application of the policy to Manase and JDB is iffy and not something I agree with, but the key for me is whether the Policy prejudiced his right to a fair trial before the jury. If anything was going to prejudice the jury it would have been the reporting of a high profile rugby league star being charged with rape, rather than the fact he was stood down pending his trial.

I think the Policy when applied prospectively is fine - it’s arbitrary but sets a fairly objective standard. And my mind doesn’t automatically (or even manually) equate a stand down with guilt. But I may simply be the anomaly.
 
zedzded said:
Someone on another forum mentioned the Brett Stewart case, I wasn't too familiar it and just read a couple of articles on it. Absolutely disgusted and appalled he was ever charged. I think there needs to be some fundamental changes to the law regarding he said, she said cases where there is no evidence or independent witnesses. We seem to be at a point where the victim is never doubted. Why would someone make that up? I'm obviously being naïve and idealistic here, but I would think investigating officers would be horrified at the thought of throwing someone in jail for 5+ years when they are unsure of their guilt or innocence. There needs to be be zero doubt. This may mean more guilty people don't get convicted, but isn't that a preference to innocence people being jailed?
Click to expand...
The climate of the time was against Brett Stewart. There were a never ending list of League players allegedly doing things wrong, and allegedly having the police/prosecution/courts treat them with leniency. As such there was a real push to go hard at the next cab off the rank.

At the time through what was in the media and other tidbits it was obvious that there was nothing there. The NRL took no time though in tearing Brett to shreds and implementing a raft of prejudicial changes. Fining manly for having players out of control and drunk, when it turns out all they did was leave the pub after they were asked to which had nothing to do with intoxication.

Brett was further punished because he was the "Face of the game" and that meant that any accusation against him whether true or not, was somehow his fault, even though he had never asked to be the face of the game.

How Gallop and the NRL treated Brett and Manly through that was nothing short of ridiculous and in my eyes unforgivable. Brett and Glen made sure to make that known when they could.

It started a tradition of the NRL making over-reaching decisions life the not-at fault stand down
 
Ranga said:
The retrospective application of the policy to Manase and JDB is iffy and not something I agree with, but the key for me is whether the Policy prejudiced his right to a fair trial before the jury. If anything was going to prejudice the jury it would have been the reporting of a high profile rugby league star being charged with rape, rather than the fact he was stood down pending his trial.

I think the Policy when applied prospectively is fine - it’s arbitrary but sets a fairly objective standard. And my mind doesn’t automatically (or even manually) equate a stand down with guilt. But I may simply be the anomaly.
Click to expand...
Pretty sure that the Not at fault stand down was cleared as being non-prejudicial and therefore there really isn't anything that players can do
 
Dan said:
The climate of the time was against Brett Stewart. There were a never ending list of League players allegedly doing things wrong, and allegedly having the police/prosecution/courts treat them with leniency. As such there was a real push to go hard at the next cab off the rank.

At the time through what was in the media and other tidbits it was obvious that there was nothing there. The NRL took no time though in tearing Brett to shreds and implementing a raft of prejudicial changes. Fining manly for having players out of control and drunk, when it turns out all they did was leave the pub after they were asked to which had nothing to do with intoxication.

Brett was further punished because he was the "Face of the game" and that meant that any accusation against him whether true or not, was somehow his fault, even though he had never asked to be the face of the game.

How Gallop and the NRL treated Brett and Manly through that was nothing short of ridiculous and in my eyes unforgivable. Brett and Glen made sure to make that known when they could.

It started a tradition of the NRL making over-reaching decisions life the not-at fault stand down
Click to expand...
That said you would also think the Brett Stewart case would have taught the NRL some things !!

Sadly it never did !!

And the fact he never got an apology still ****s me all these years later .
 
Dan said:
The climate of the time was against Brett Stewart.
Click to expand...
It was more specific than that, the cops and DPP had been soundly and correctly criticised for failing to instigate prosecutions over the Bulldogs Coffs Harbour scandal.
"League stars are a protected species".
Which of course they always had been. Protected by their clubs, and complicit journalists, and the lack of mobile phone apps.
The fact Brett Stewart was obviously innocent was overridden by the prosecutors sensitivity to that criticism. "We'd better take it to trial and let the jury acquit, then we can't be criticised".
 
zedzded said:
I think there needs to be some fundamental changes to the law regarding he said, she said cases where there is no evidence or independent witnesses. We seem to be at a point where the victim is never doubted.
Click to expand...
So a person getting in the witness box and taking an oath to tell truth is what you call 'no evidence'.
You say 'the victim is never doubted? If we are satisfied a person is a victim, then why should they be doubted?
Oh I get it, you mean no-one should be charged just on the basis of one woman's word.
 
zedzded said:
Someone on another forum mentioned the Brett Stewart case, I wasn't too familiar it and just read a couple of articles on it. Absolutely disgusted and appalled he was ever charged. I think there needs to be some fundamental changes to the law regarding he said, she said cases where there is no evidence or independent witnesses. We seem to be at a point where the victim is never doubted. Why would someone make that up? I'm obviously being naïve and idealistic here, but I would think investigating officers would be horrified at the thought of throwing someone in jail for 5+ years when they are unsure of their guilt or innocence. There needs to be be zero doubt. This may mean more guilty people don't get convicted, but isn't that a preference to innocence people being jailed?
Click to expand...
If the victim is never doubted there would be a much higher conviction rate. Enough sexual assault perpetrators go free because of he said she said scenarios, what other burden of proof do you think they need on top of what they have to prove now ?

It's a complicated issue no one outside of those directly involved will ever know the whole truth.
 
Stewbojevic said:
That’d be devastating for Manase... found guilty or not surely he’d just want to move on with things. Same as De Belin. The judicial system is a joke.
Click to expand...
Too right it is. My mates son who was bashed on the side of the M1 three years ago, finally got to see the scum sentenced. Only for that to turn into a bad joke. Community service for one, and 20 months inside for the main offender.
My mates son, will never work again. They removed 20% of his brain. He is basically a 32 yr old stroke victim.
 
zedzded said:
Someone on another forum mentioned the Brett Stewart case, I wasn't too familiar it and just read a couple of articles on it. Absolutely disgusted and appalled he was ever charged. I think there needs to be some fundamental changes to the law regarding he said, she said cases where there is no evidence or independent witnesses. We seem to be at a point where the victim is never doubted. Why would someone make that up? I'm obviously being naïve and idealistic here, but I would think investigating officers would be horrified at the thought of throwing someone in jail for 5+ years when they are unsure of their guilt or innocence. There needs to be be zero doubt. This may mean more guilty people don't get convicted, but isn't that a preference to innocence people being jailed?
Click to expand...
If you want to familiarise yourself with the Brett Stewart case then have a read of these:

silvertails.net

Stewart Case updates - no speculation please

This is the official thread providing updates from our man in the court room. It is not for speculation or comment. Updates will be posted here for information of silvertails posters.Â
silvertails.net silvertails.net
silvertails.net

News: Sins of the Father

When rugby league star Brett Stewart was charged with sexual assault in 2009, it created headlines. But the story that wasn’t told was that of the people behind the now-disproved allegations. Read the full article [hr] Excellent article in the GoodWeekend, on the father of the girl that...
silvertails.net silvertails.net
www.smh.com.au

Sins of the father

When rugby league star Brett Stewart was charged with sexual assault in 2009, it created headlines. But the story that wasn’t told was that of the people behind the now-disproved allegations. By Mark Whittaker.
www.smh.com.au www.smh.com.au
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Members online

Total: 300 (members: 7, guests: 293)

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
7
Guests online
293
Total visitors
300
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Latest posts

Newest members

Stay Connected

Back
Top Bottom