JDB Federal Court Challenge

[The Wheel]

I understand the money the clubs have invested in these players, but why aren't they the ones that are taking a stand against these players? As their employers, surely it is affecting their business and image more than anyone else's to be accepting of this kind of behaviour.

Because rightly or wrongly they want to win a game in the weekend

You make a fair point eg Manly took a stand against Zane Tevalano when he pleaded guilty months later he is winning premierships at the Chooks. Maybe that is why a NRL response is required?

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

What is wrong with the judge that she has to take so long to make what constitutionally is an obvious decision. Something smells.

Any particular part of the Constitution you are referring to here?

 

[manlyfan76]

Any particular part of the Constitution you are referring to here?

Mabo?

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

The vibe?

 

[BrendonStarr]

What is wrong with the judge that she has to take so long to make what constitutionally is an obvious decision. Something smells.

Look, she gets payed more the longer she twiddles her thumbs over this. She has already made her mind up one way or the other.

 

[Indy0204]

Look, she gets payed more the longer she twiddles her thumbs over this. She has already made her mind up one way or the other.

That's not how judicial salaries work mate. She has a salary for the year regardless of how many cases she hears or how long she takes to hand down her judgments. This is a complex case, let the judicial process run its course. Be patient. Knowing Walker, he'd probably come back for a game, do something stupid and get suspended or punch a wall at home and be out for a month with a broken hand anyway.

 

[anthonyb1965]

The vibe?

Love that movie!

 

[yokahontas]

Love that movie!

I’ve got a Dennis Denuto stubby holder with that quote on it!

 

[tookey]

I understand the money the clubs have invested in these players, but why aren't they the ones that are taking a stand against these players? As their employers, surely it is affecting their business and image more than anyone else's to be accepting of this kind of behaviour.

St George did and we signed AFB

Canberra did it with a few players like Dugan and look where they ended up

The NRL needs to be sole provider of any sanctions and fines otherwise players will leave their clubs and go elsewhere

 

[urulion]

Any particular part of the Constitution you are referring to here?

I would think bear is referring to section 71 Judicial powers, and section 72 regarding tenure.

The NRL and Greenturd do not have judicial powers s71 to penalise any person, this is a function expressly granted to the courts. Unless Greenturd, or the NRL can show a document or instrument that they have been granted life tenure per s72 as a judge, been recommended by the parliament and sworn in by the governor, the NRL have Constitutionally exhausted a power that they have never been granted.

Penalising any person before a fair and appropriate opportunity to defend ones self, is also breaching our Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act. Not even courts themselves would dare penalise any person before a hearing.

 

[yokahontas]

St George did and we signed AFB

Canberra did it with a few players like Dugan and look where they ended up

The NRL needs to be sole provider of any sanctions and fines otherwise players will leave their clubs and go elsewhere

To be fair, AFB did sit out a year of footy, and completed all the programs he was told to, before he was given approval to play in the NRL. They also approved him to train with Manly before that, nearly a year after St George stood him down, and six months after they actually tore up his contract.

It’s the situations like the Dugans and the Walkers that are the problem - one club sacks you and another pops up straight away with a shiny new contract, that the NRL immediately registers. No need to prove you’ve learned from your indiscretions, no need to cop any punishment or meaningful ban from the game. Everybody wins except the club that was forced to sack you.

 

[Woodsie]

Because rightly or wrongly they want to win a game in the weekend

You make a fair point eg Manly took a stand against Zane Tevalano when he pleaded guilty months later he is winning premierships at the Chooks. Maybe that is why a NRL response is required?

The NRL had the option to NOT register his new contract ... they obviously made the decision he was fine ...

@tookey in all these cases the NRL have had the power to reject the contract from a new club ... so they already have veto powers ... the technical name for them is the look 'em in the eye test ....

 

[The Wheel]

The NRL had the option to NOT register his new contract ... they obviously made the decision he was fine ...

@tookey in all these cases the NRL have had the power to reject the contract from a new club ... so they already have veto powers ... the technical name for them is the look 'em in the eye test ....

I think that is called the InToddgrity Test

 

[Sue]

I would think bear is referring to section 71 Judicial powers, and section 72 regarding tenure.

The NRL and Greenturd do not have judicial powers s71 to penalise any person, this is a function expressly granted to the courts. Unless Greenturd, or the NRL can show a document or instrument that they have been granted life tenure per s72 as a judge, been recommended by the parliament and sworn in by the governor, the NRL have Constitutionally exhausted a power that they have never been granted.

Penalising any person before a fair and appropriate opportunity to defend ones self, is also breaching our Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act. Not even courts themselves would dare penalise any person before a hearing.

Hi Urulion
Surely no one seriously thinks the Federal Court would waste a whole week hearing an employment law matter if an inalienable unambiguous constitutional right has been breached that renders all other evidence superflous and the verdict a cast iron guarantee in favour of JDB .Would not have got through the front door.

This case is simply an employment law matter that will be decided on a variety of issues like natural justice and employers right to protect their brand and run their business as they see fit. Surely no one also seriously thinks these are the first blokes to get charged with criminal offences and get sacked on the spot or stood down before they are found guilty. Newsflash : employers don’t like having clients deal with employees charged with rape and most employers reaction is to sack them on the spot.. And there are specialist legal firms who deal with this every day and all day.The fact these guys are professional league players and not plumbers means jack **** in terms of the law to be applied.

Happens ALL THE TIME in workplaces around the country . The odd one contests it , most don’t bother.In this case they aren’t even sacked and are receiving full pay and like others before them they can still exercise their rights and contest it. Once again it happens all the time. It will simply be decided on the specific facts in this case.I have no idea who will win as I like everyone else has not seen or heard all the evidence.A great example are these never ending line of senior execs who are getting stood down or sacked almost weekly immediately after sexual assault claims way before any verdict is handed down.

The idea that this is some Constitutional test case that will change Constitutional precedent forever and the legal world is waiting with bated breath is ludicrous. This is bread and butter employment law with the facts in the case deciding the issue whether the NRL can legally apply this rule to this particular employment t contract. Nothing more , nothing less.

We love the game and we are sweating on it for different reasons that are rugby league based but this happens all the time in every industry and there is no great Constitutional conspiracy going to be inflicted on anyone, believe me. The simple reason they are taking their time is their is a lot of evidence to look at and the fact judges love to string things out. It’s in their DNA.
Nothing to see here.

 

[urulion]

Hi Urulion
Surely no one seriously thinks the Federal Court would waste a whole week hearing an employment law matter if an inalienable unambiguous constitutional right has been breached that renders all other evidence superflous and the verdict a cast iron guarantee in favour of JDB .Would not have got through the front door.

This case is simply an employment law matter that will be decided on a variety of issues like natural justice and employers right to protect their brand and run their business as they see fit. Surely no one also seriously thinks these are the first blokes to get charged with criminal offences and get sacked on the spot or stood down before they are found guilty. Newsflash : employers don’t like having clients deal with employees charged with rape and most employers reaction is to sack them on the spot.. And there are specialist legal firms who deal with this every day and all day.The fact these guys are professional league players and not plumbers means jack **** in terms of the law to be applied.

Happens ALL THE TIME in workplaces around the country . The odd one contests it , most don’t bother.In this case they aren’t even sacked and are receiving full pay and like others before them they can still exercise their rights and contest it. Once again it happens all the time. It will simply be decided on the specific facts in this case.I have no idea who will win as I like everyone else has not seen or heard all the evidence.A great example are these never ending line of senior execs who are getting stood down or sacked almost weekly immediately after sexual assault claims way before any verdict is handed down.

The idea that this is some Constitutional test case that will change Constitutional precedent forever and the legal world is waiting with bated breath is ludicrous. This is bread and butter employment law with the facts in the case deciding the issue whether the NRL can legally apply this rule to this particular employment t contract. Nothing more , nothing less.

We love the game and we are sweating on it for different reasons that are rugby league based but this happens all the time in every industry and there is no great Constitutional conspiracy going to be inflicted on anyone, believe me. The simple reason they are taking their time is their is a lot of evidence to look at and the fact judges love to string things out. It’s in their DNA.
Nothing to see here.

Hi Sue hope all is well. Firstly, I have not suggested that this is a Constitutional test case at any stage, however, I do believe there are valid Constitutional and Human Rights arguments regarding this matter. I am not informed as to the exact submissions of JDB's legal team and hope we can get further clarity once the matter is complete.

What I do know is that, Enfield his QC, has stated the following foundations for the appeal (De Belin is suing both the NRL and ARLC, they did not have the power to suspend him and engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct).

This is where I disagree with your comment. Misleading and Deceptive conduct comes under the Competition and Consumer Act which falls under an administrative matter not an employment matter as you suggest. So reliance purely on employment law is far fetched from the realities transpiring in this appeal. The issues are several, but I am not privy to the arguments posed by either legal team.

Further, Enfield suggesting they did not have the power screams out to 'what authority they had to make such a decision in the first place', talking about administrative authority in particular (ultra vires) not employment authority. Although it may sound ludicrous to you that they may rely on Constitutional arguments or even Human Rights, that's your opinion and it is respected. And yes I agree that it will not be a Constitutional ground breaking case and do not think that is what they are wanting to achieve.

 

[wombatgc]

What is wrong with the judge that she has to take so long to make what constitutionally is an obvious decision. Something smells.

She’s a woman.....she’ll take as much time as she god damn wants!

 

[Sue]

Hi Sue hope all is well. Firstly, I have not suggested that this is a Constitutional test case at any stage, however, I do believe there are valid Constitutional and Human Rights arguments regarding this matter. I am not informed as to the exact submissions of JDB's legal team and hope we can get further clarity once the matter is complete.

What I do know is that, Enfield his QC, has stated the following foundations for the appeal (De Belin is suing both the NRL and ARLC, they did not have the power to suspend him and engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct).

This is where I disagree with your comment. Misleading and Deceptive conduct comes under the Competition and Consumer Act which falls under an administrative matter not an employment matter as you suggest. So reliance purely on employment law is far fetched from the realities transpiring in this appeal. The issues are several, but I am not privy to the arguments posed by either legal team.

Further, Enfield suggesting they did not have the power screams out to 'what authority they had to make such a decision in the first place', talking about administrative authority in particular (ultra vires) not employment authority. Although it may sound ludicrous to you that they may rely on Constitutional arguments or even Human Rights, that's your opinion and it is respected. And yes I agree that it will not be a Constitutional ground breaking case and do not think that is what they are wanting to achieve.

Good discussion

I take it on board. But this is just a rugby league version of something that happens every day in employment law. Standing down people before trial has been dealt with hundreds of times in the past with differing results because the surrounding facts are different. Every single time it occurs it is someone getting punished before a trial yet the outcomes are different. Pretty easy to conclude that the points you raise are part of many issues they look at and is not a smoking gun.If it was then every case would be simply decided because the trial hadn’t occurred and that’s not the case.This is in essence a pretty vanilla case . Nothing new.Will turn on the facts.

I would also point out Einfeld also raised in JDBs defence that he was “not educated by the NRL to know how to treat women properly” ! How an eminent legal counsel could say that in open court without being embarrassed astounds me.Why he even felt the need to make an assertion like that is equally crazy.It can do nothing but cast aspersions over his clients character... and it did just that. If he thinks rubbish like that would endear himself to the court he needs a stiff drink .
In a close civil trial on balance of probabilities with him bearing the burden of proof it may very well have seriously harmed his client in the eyes of the judge if it’s a tight result.

As such I take any suggestion with a grain of salt by the esteemed QC in this case. I’m not questioning his overall ability but in this case seriously how could he think it was a good idea or a valid part of his case is mind boggling .If he’s gone disgracefully as low as to use that old chestnut as part of his clients plea for a result then whatever else he raises should not be taken as gospel. The Turd got lambasted for his daughter touch football rubbish but at least he had the possible excuse he was under pressure and it was an off the cuff remark. This guys a professional lawyer and it was disgraceful. Just my view.

But always good to chat. Cheers

 

[Bearfax]

Any particular part of the Constitution you are referring to here?

Self evident SER8. Innocent under the law until proven guilty. There is a precedent case almost identical to this one, which I have already furnished on this forum. The judge rightly ignored all the arguments of effect on business etc and pointed out that the presumption of innocence is fundamental.

A no fault argument is an insane arrangement. If there is NO FAULT, why is he being denied from playing. It denies a person not yet found guilty of their fundamental rights. You see I just don't understand what all the argument is about. Its never been an issue before. If the person is guilty, he will be sentenced by the court and the NRL then have the right to take action.

This is all because of public pressure on the League because they haven't been taking these issues seriously when people are found guilty. Matthew Lodge is a perfect example. He was found guilty of a very nasty act, yet the League treated him with kid gloves. This is where the League has failed, and trying to persecute players who are yet to have their day in court eg Brett Stewart, just exacerbates the folly of their action. How often does this example need to be raised as an example.

What if De Bellin is denied the right to play until his court case which wont be until 2020, the way courts go, and the charge is dismissed. We see things in the game that are far far worse than someone being charged and receiving a slap on the wrist. The offence is disgraceful, but he hasnt been found guilty and that is the key. When Jamil Hoppa was found guilty, if you look back on my comments, I agreed with the tough stance that the League took. Trouble is its dreadfully inconsistent, and now they are persecuting people who haven't even been convicted, but mollycoddling those who have. Does that make sense?

9.15 The ICCPR protects the presumption of innocence: Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall have the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. 9.16 International instruments cannot be used to 'override clear and valid provisions of Australian national law'.

 

[MadMarcus]

@Sue I’m not up to date with the finer legal points on the case how can it be an employment law case? JDB is not an employee of the NRL (who has made the decision) and I would have thought he would be a contractor, and not an employee, of St George?

 

[urulion]

Good discussion

I take it on board. But this is just a rugby league version of something that happens every day in employment law. Standing down people before trial has been dealt with hundreds of times in the past with differing results because the surrounding facts are different. Every single time it occurs it is someone getting punished before a trial yet the outcomes are different. Pretty easy to conclude that the points you raise are part of many issues they look at and is not a smoking gun.If it was then every case would be simply decided because the trial hadn’t occurred and that’s not the case.This is in essence a pretty vanilla case . Nothing new.Will turn on the facts.

I would also point out Einfeld also raised in JDBs defence that he was “not educated by the NRL to know how to treat women properly” ! How an eminent legal counsel could say that in open court without being embarrassed astounds me.Why he even felt the need to make an assertion like that is equally crazy.It can do nothing but cast aspersions over his clients character... and it did just that. If he thinks rubbish like that would endear himself to the court he needs a stiff drink .
In a close civil trial on balance of probabilities with him bearing the burden of proof it may very well have seriously harmed his client in the eyes of the judge if it’s a tight result.

As such I take any suggestion with a grain of salt by the esteemed QC in this case. I’m not questioning his overall ability but in this case seriously how could he think it was a good idea or a valid part of his case is mind boggling .If he’s gone disgracefully as low as to use that old chestnut as part of his clients plea for a result then whatever else he raises should not be taken as gospel. The Turd got lambasted for his daughter touch football rubbish but at least he had the possible excuse he was under pressure and it was an off the cuff remark. This guys a professional lawyer and it was disgraceful. Just my view.


But always good to chat. Cheers

I honestly have no idea why Einfield raised such a ground and believe me I am just as mystified as you are. I totally agree with your view and considering he is probably on over 10k a day in court, it is quite poor to suggest that JDB had no idea and needed education.

Absolutely agree and thanking you for a great chat, your posts make for great reading. As always they are very articulate and give rise to interesting discussion. To be honest we are blessed on this forum due to the volume of informative posts and most remembering we support the same team. On some other forums (not necessary NRL), some just abuse one another because of opposing opinions.

See you around the forum Sue have a good night.