14 years is just the maximum available for that offence, he won't get that. The first trial and sentence won't come into it, he'll be sentenced completely afresh.This article states he was originally sentenced to 5 years 9 months & could now face up to 14 years at resentencing.
I assume the maximum of 14 years was applicable in his first sentencing?
A question from the jury in Jarryd Hayne's sexual assault trial helped end 22 hours of deadlock
The former NRL star is preparing to return to court tomorrow after being convicted of sexual assault for the second time. Yesterday, a jury asked whether "ignorance of the law" was "sufficient defence" to acquit him.www.abc.net.au
I would have thought that time already served would come into consideration for whatever the new sentencing would be, possibly as a reduction to the new sentencing in total.14 years is just the maximum available for that offence, he won't get that. The first trial and sentence won't come into it, he'll be sentenced completely afresh.
Absolutely correct Jethro, he must be given full credit for all time he's already spent in custody in relation to the charge. Also, after a retrial you don't normally get a longer sentence than you got first time, so he may end up with something a bit smaller, plus credit for time served. So might end up having to go back inside for a further couple of years or so, before being released to parole supervision.I would have thought that time already served would come into consideration for whatever the new sentencing would be, possibly as a reduction to the new sentencing in total.
I have read in one of the ABC articles that "Hayne spent nine months behind bars after being found guilty at his second trial in 2021, and jailed for a five years and nine months." Because of that time already served, if say he was given the same sentence again, I would have thought that he would only be in for the five years because he had already served the nine months. Obviously I am wrong. 🙄
But thankfully that represented a jury of his peersMust have been very frustrating being on that jury if the crucial question for one juror was the final one they asked the judge.
Agree - but is also an ever present spectre in this day and age, especially for "professional" sports peopleWhat a waste. Very sad for all involved. This kind of doesn’t feel like a footy topic to me other than the fact Jarred once played the game.
yeah boiiiiiHilarious mate
But I’m sure her bank account isMargaret Cunneen might want to consider moving back to the prosecution side. Her record defending footy players is not looking good.
The court does. It's a joke.Respectfully, who really cares about his financial hardships, trauma, etc?
He's been found guilty, so should be punished accordingly. (Worth noting it's not the first time he's been accused of such things).
JH deserves what he gets.
Agree. The whole thing is bloody sad but a court has found him guilty of a terrible crime. He is responsible for that and he deserves the consequences of that.Respectfully, who really cares about his financial hardships, trauma, etc?
He's been found guilty, so should be punished accordingly. (Worth noting it's not the first time he's been accused of such things).
JH deserves what he gets.
Especially one where he has to bend over to go looking for them.I’m sure they’ll put on an Easter egg hunt at Long Bay to cheer him up
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 |