JDB Federal Court Challenge

[Highflier]

Nothing like a prolonged weighty legal to and fro to ponder upon before retiring to the library for a scotch and cigar before nodding off in my winged chair while the fire quietly crackles in the background
Thank you so much Sue Urilon Wombat etc for the scholary pontifications
Goodnight all

 

[Stuey Davis’s Socks]

How’s the serenity!

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

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'.

I guess we'll find out soon enough! And I agree with your point that the poor record of the NRL regarding Lodge and others has directly contributed to the public pressure they're feeling now.

However I don't see any constitutional argument at play here, and I suspect Sue is on the money with what the case is about.

As to people being 'persecuted' or 'punished' before being found guilty ... how about those who are locked up bail refused for a year or two before they even get to trial? That happens despite the presumption of innocence, because there are quite different considerations that govern decisions about bail and they do not depend on a finding of guilt, which clearly can only be made after trial. Similarly, there probably be different legal principles that will decide this case. That is merely my guess of course, the decision and reasons will certainly be interesting.

 

[BOZO]

What a can of worms this legal system sounds like .

The only consistent thing in our legal system is lawyers always make money

 

[redlineg]

What a can of worms this legal system sounds like .

The only consistent thing in our legal system is lawyers always make money

and make even more $$$$ by adjourning and re-adjourning and re-adjourning and doing anything they can to drag a case for as long as possible so they can bill even more $$$

 

[MadMarcus]

Nothing like a prolonged weighty legal to and fro to ponder upon before retiring to the library for a scotch and cigar before nodding off in my winged chair while the fire quietly crackles in the background
Thank you so much Sue Urilon Wombat etc for the scholary pontifications
Goodnight all

Me too, but I might go for a cognac instead of a scotch tonight. I’ll ask Jeeves to fetch me one now.

And we wonder why they call us Silvertails...

 

[Bearfax]

I guess we'll find out soon enough! And I agree with your point that the poor record of the NRL regarding Lodge and others has directly contributed to the public pressure they're feeling now.

However I don't see any constitutional argument at play here, and I suspect Sue is on the money with what the case is about.

As to people being 'persecuted' or 'punished' before being found guilty ... how about those who are locked up bail refused for a year or two before they even get to trial? That happens despite the presumption of innocence, because there are quite different considerations that govern decisions about bail and they do not depend on a finding of guilt, which clearly can only be made after trial. Similarly, there probably be different legal principles that will decide this case. That is merely my guess of course, the decision and reasons will certainly be interesting.

Generally someone who is locked up before court has a serious criminal history and there is fear of flight. Most issues relating to bail and being held in custody relate to those who have an extensive criminal history and a failure to front at court in the past. The main purpose of bail is to ensure the person attends and bail is determined by factors associated to a number of features such as past crim history, fear that they will bolt given past behaviour, stability such as employment, accommodation etc. It also follows police demonstrating they have a strong case. \

Even so many who are held in custody apply for Supreme Court bail and often get it. You'll find that someone like a professional footballer would very rarefy be held in custody prior to trial, except perhaps with strong police evidence relating to murder. Mind you El Masri was charged with a Domestic Violence matter (later dismissed) and there was an argument regarding holding him in custody being unjust which was won. It is never intended as punishment but rather as assurance that they will appear at court. For example Brett Stewart was charged with a serious sex offences but had no difficulty in getting bail.

https://www.workplaceexpress.com.au/nl06_news_print.php?selkey=53946
​

Generally when an employer chooses to take action against someone charged with an offence, it depends on where the offence is said to have occurred that determines in the eyes of the law whether the employer has some justification. If its something that happened on site and endangers other employee or customers, then there may be justification. But if the matter happened elsewhere and is unrelated to the employment, then you will find the courts would oppose an employer taking action against them, even for very serious matters. One example is above Of course governments have unfortunately been eroding this fundamental right such as in the bail act. That why I asked if something nasty is happening

 

[globaleagle]

Nothing like a prolonged weighty legal to and fro to ponder upon before retiring to the library for a scotch and cigar before nodding off in my winged chair while the fire quietly crackles in the background
Thank you so much Sue Urilon Wombat etc for the scholary pontifications
Goodnight all

"Scholarly"

lol

I'm so funny!

 

[mickqld]

Some of these posts are just way too long for my short attention span

 

[Ralphie]

Some of these posts are just way too long for my short attention span

You lost me at “some of these posts.”

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

. It is never intended as punishment but rather as assurance that they will appear at court.

Well that is exactly the point I was making.
Refusing bail is specifically stated to not be punishment, yet it involves dire consequences for someone accused of an offence, even though they are innocent until proved guilty.
The point has been made several times in this discussion ((and most clearly by Sue) that people accused of serious offences - or even simply of workplace misconduct - are suspended on full pay all the time, pending investigation of the allegations. It is not at all uncommon.
And by the way I'm certainly not saying I support the NRL no fault ban, and the '11 years or women and children' guideline, I find it a pathetic knee-jerk response which seems completely arbitrary. On the other hand I accept that something has to be done about the poor behaviour standards that seem to be tolerated if not generated by the culture within certain clubs or the game at large.

 

[Woodsie]

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.

I took the bit about Einfeld raising the education point simply as a need to tick all the boxes for the record ... and not a major part of his arguement ... but then again I am no expert ...

 

[ricardo]

The old "NRL didn't tell me gang rape was illegal" defence ...

 

[Bearfax]

Well that is exactly the point I was making.
Refusing bail is specifically stated to not be punishment, yet it involves dire consequences for someone accused of an offence, even though they are innocent until proved guilty.
The point has been made several times in this discussion ((and most clearly by Sue) that people accused of serious offences - or even simply of workplace misconduct - are suspended on full pay all the time, pending investigation of the allegations. It is not at all uncommon.
And by the way I'm certainly not saying I support the NRL no fault ban, and the '11 years or women and children' guideline, I find it a pathetic knee-jerk response which seems completely arbitrary. On the other hand I accept that something has to be done about the poor behaviour standards that seem to be tolerated if not generated by the culture within certain clubs or the game at large.

SER8, the issue regarding bail and being held before trial is in fact an issue raised many times as contrary to the spirit of the principle of 'innocent until proven guilty'. Some like El Masri have challenged Govt policy on this issue and won. Thing is Govts make decisions without clear legal guidelines and like the League often try to bypass the principle through stealth. However when challenged, these decisions are often found wanting. Its just that most of us cant afford to challenge authorities, who have far greater recourses than an individual has, one of the major flaws in our legal system that maintains that all are equal under the law (which in reality is not true).

Again your comment about dismissal is in essence correct, but in most instances it is where the employer considers his employees at risk, or that the individual has physically damaged something within the company. But you will find when contested, courts will take the side of the employee where the charge is unrelated to their employment. Making a claim that it affects sales, or image etc on those grounds, as indicated in the attached example...and there are many...will lose in court. And that is what this issue is about. Does De Belin or any other player charged with a matter unrelated to their employment have the right to oppose being denied that employment purely on the grounds that it affects the image, sales, appearance of the employer. And clearly the answer, based on law is that he does. Once he is convicted that's a different story entirely

This argument is getting confused between what is law and what are our moral/ethical standards. Though law is based on agreed standards of behaviour, they are assessed by secular authorities. Morals change with time and all of us have different positions on many issues. In the past it was handled by religious authorities and therefore we got the Inquisition in Christianity, sharia law in Islam, Rabbinical law in Judaism etc and it was often arbitrary. Our legal system is based on a set of standards which are now beyond moral interpretations. It changes with time depending upon the overall ethical direction of the community. For example as a young parole officer I was required to supervise people convicted of homosexuality or having an abortion. Values change. No moral is immutable and we all see things differently. So we have laws that meet the need of the majority that best protects us, and of which we all know what limitations we require in our social actions. And presumption of innocence is just one example of that principle. For me, having been trained to look at issues dispassionately, I see things in legal terms, not arbitrary moral terms. This issue is an example of that. DeBellin's moral perspective is irrelevant until to contravenes legal parameters. His personal behaviours is his business as long as he does no physical harm or deny the rights of others and stays within the boundaries of the law. The argument for example to he was being immoral by having sex with a woman while his wife was at home, is between he and his partner and the question of the marriage contract between them. My ex wife left me for someone she was in a relationship with at work. Should she lose her job because of that. No. Its between me and her. In fact I still have civil contact with her decades later. Human nature, but not illegal and not justifying any civil punishment.

 

[urulion]

I took the bit about Einfeld raising the education point simply as a need to tick all the boxes for the record ... and not a major part of his arguement ... but then again I am no expert ...

Woodsie once again I think you are spot on.

 

[Sue]

@Sue I’m not up to date with the finer legal points on Marcusthe 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?

Hey Marcus
All contracts need to be lodged with the NRL for registration and all contain the same conflditions in regard to the players rights and duties in regard to their participation in the NRL. The contracts also contain of course any conditions individual clubs decide to require of the player, salary etc .

Every player who signs an NRL registered contract agrees to abide by the rules of the NRL as they are changed from time to time.

This case is basically going to decide if the NRL condition regarding the stand downs was legally inserted into the standard contract and is binding.

 

[Sue]

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.

Hi again mate

I think we both agree that the point Einfeld made will be an issue but disagree on how much weight it will be given in relation to other issues. I have no doubt it will be considered.
Cheers

 

[Jethro]

Any updates on this case yet?

 

[Ralphie]

Any updates on this case yet?

The Judge is waiting until his case is finalised so as not to prejudice the outcome

 

[Indy0204]

Perry J will hand her judgment down next week!

https://wwos.nine.com.au/nrl/de-bel...ext-week/63fe4ebc-b333-41d1-960e-9f8f94834f2c