Jack de Belin court case

  • We had an issue with background services between march 10th and 15th or there about. This meant the payment services were not linking to automatic upgrades. If you paid for premium membership and are still seeing ads please let me know and the email you used against PayPal and I cam manually verify and upgrade your account.
AASeaEagles said:
Money absolutely affects the outcomes in courts in Australia,
Click to expand...

It’s not only money that can effect the outcome of a trial; these articles could lead somebody to think the way police investigated the case may have an influence; not getting a statement off the girl’s friend until a week or more after the incident, not getting the girl’s mobile phone data for a year after the event, their handing over of protected data(privileged lawyer client communications) from de Belin’s mobile to the prosecutors and not properly completing the required paperwork.

www.smh.com.au

Police gave legally privileged material from Jack de Belin's phone to prosecutors

A detective investigating rape claims against St George Illawarra star Jack de Belin has admitted to delivering legally privileged material from the footballer's phone to prosecutors.
www.smh.com.au www.smh.com.au


Not that I’m a legal expert but it sounds like the police have “dropped the ball cold on the first tackle coming off their goal line”, to put it in footy parlance.
 
Last edited:
Leader of the Flock said:
It’s not only money that can effect the outcome of a trial; these articles could lead somebody to think the way police investigated the case may have an influence; not getting a statement off the girl’s friend until a week or more after the incident, not getting the girl’s mobile phone data for a year after the event, their handing over of protected data(privileged lawyer client communications) from de Belin’s mobile to the prosecutors and not properly completing the required paperwork.

www.smh.com.au

Police gave legally privileged material from Jack de Belin's phone to prosecutors

A detective investigating rape claims against St George Illawarra star Jack de Belin has admitted to delivering legally privileged material from the footballer's phone to prosecutors.
www.smh.com.au www.smh.com.au


Not that I’m a legal expert but it sounds like the police have “dropped the ball cold on the first tackle coming off their goal line”, to put it in footy parlance.
Click to expand...
Game, set and Match.
 
Incompetent or bungling cops usually won't make much difference aside from giving defence lawyers some material for a colourful sideshow distraction. The jury's assessment of the complainant's evidence will be the real issue (and the accuseds' evidence, if they give evidence).
 
SeaEagleRock8 said:
Incompetent or bungling cops usually won't make much difference aside from giving defence lawyers some material for a colourful sideshow distraction. The jury's assessment of the complainant's evidence will be the real issue (and the accuseds' evidence, if they give evidence).
Click to expand...

Good to know. I was starting to think the cops were St george fans and were deliberately stuffing this whole thing up.

Turns out they're either lazy, incompetent, sexists, or cops.
 
SeaEagleRock8 said:
Incompetent or bungling cops usually won't make much difference aside from giving defence lawyers some material for a colourful sideshow distraction. The jury's assessment of the complainant's evidence will be the real issue (and the accuseds' evidence, if they give evidence).
Click to expand...
Police bungling especially in a case like this is huge. Especially when they have released legally privileged communications between DB and his lawyers, where the fact another person was in the apartment and that was never clarified and where the support person was in the interview to hear the complaint and then after gave their own evidence. the "easiest" way to get a case thrown out or in fact even a fine overturned is to show that the process was not legal. As a Lobbyist (and no I am not one of these charlatans that is a former party hack or a former MP - I was a Lobbyist based on my public service experience long before Lobbying became the in thing for the apparatchiks) - my first step in any representation is to validate if the process was legal ... and then go from there. The amount of times - public servants or police stuff up and give me an angle to get something thrown out is astounding.
 
The better Robbo said:
Game, set and Match.
Click to expand...


Police are just people, and of course responsive to their superiors, who don't want negative press, and to political pressures, as well as being guided by their own personal perceptions. When its something that is likely to be out there in the media they are of course more inclined to respond in a manner that doesn't cast too many big questions over their handling of the case. They'll naturally seek to be more diligent. Not biased, just ensuring their efforts are seen as professional. So with cases involving well known people like De Bellin or Walker, they tread more carefully and probably pursue the case more fully to ensure they don't come under adverse scrutiny. They are just as concerned to protect their job and prospects as the next person. Human nature.
 
Shane4500 said:
Police bungling especially in a case like this is huge.
Click to expand...
Bit hard to say just by reading a few lines reported in the media, but I can't see any of those issues being grounds for a mistrial or a directed not-guilty verdict.
Bear in mind it is merely standard practice for competent defence counsel to raise all and any irregularities in an investigation, a) to cast doubt and confusion for the jury and b) to preserve any points of law for a possible appeal if they lose
 
SeaEagleRock8 said:
Bit hard to say just by reading a few lines reported in the media, but I can't see any of those issues being grounds for a mistrial or a directed not-guilty verdict.
Bear in mind it is merely standard practice for competent defence counsel to raise all and any irregularities in an investigation, a) to cast doubt and confusion for the jury and b) to preserve any points of law for a possible appeal if they lose
Click to expand...
I certainly never said there would be a mistrial but police bungling factors in heavily and then on the other side - great police work obviously holds huge weight. But seriously - the bungles outline above are pretty decent bungles - incompetence really at best.
 
The support person who was present for the complainant's interview and later gave evidence as a witness is the only one of those issues that is potentially important. But even that could likely be cured by a direction from the judge (who is a very smart judge). What was she even giving evidence about, how important was it? Too hard to make any sensible conclusion based only on snippets from reporters
Bungles by police are par for the course. I've known instances where you can get lucky and a whole case turns on one but in my experience that is by far the exception.
 
It will turn on the evidence of the two accused and whether the jury believe them. They have a case to answer and there is strong evidence of recent complaint. Police bungling the interview of support person won’t change much. The SMS message to her the following day asking her if she was alright and her response of what happened last night was not okay - is powerful evidence. It’s a Question for the jury to determine if the evidence satisfies them beyond reasonable doubt.
 
Shane4500 said:
Police bungling especially in a case like this is huge. Especially when they have released legally privileged communications between DB and his lawyers, where the fact another person was in the apartment and that was never clarified and where the support person was in the interview to hear the complaint and then after gave their own evidence. the "easiest" way to get a case thrown out or in fact even a fine overturned is to show that the process was not legal. As a Lobbyist (and no I am not one of these charlatans that is a former party hack or a former MP - I was a Lobbyist based on my public service experience long before Lobbying became the in thing for the apparatchiks) - my first step in any representation is to validate if the process was legal ... and then go from there. The amount of times - public servants or police stuff up and give me an angle to get something thrown out is astounding.
Click to expand...
It will be interesting though if the only thing the defence has is to question the procedures.

Judge Hasler: “What about the rape aspect of the case?”

Defence: “That’s beside the point your honour, look at these procedural mistakes.”
 
Shoe1 said:
It will be interesting though if the only thing the defence has is to question the procedures.

Judge Hasler: “What about the rape aspect of the case?”

Defence: “That’s beside the point your honour, look at these procedural mistakes.”
Click to expand...
well DB would better hope he has more evidence. The fact there was another guy in the apartment and I am gathering he heard nothing might be big. Who knows - I am not across the case - just mentioned that procedural issues can damage a case massively. I have no perspective at all on if he is innocent or guilty.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

Total: 584 (members: 20, guests: 564)

Latest posts

Team P W L PD Pts
5 4 1 23 10
5 4 1 14 10
6 4 2 48 8
6 4 2 28 8
5 3 2 25 8
5 3 2 14 8
6 3 2 38 7
6 3 2 21 7
6 3 3 37 6
6 3 3 16 6
6 3 3 -13 6
5 2 3 -15 6
6 3 3 -36 6
6 2 4 -5 4
6 2 4 -7 4
5 0 5 -86 2
6 1 5 -102 2

Online statistics

Members online
20
Guests online
564
Total visitors
584
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Latest posts

Newest members

Stay Connected

Back
Top Bottom