Sue unfortunately I don t think you appreciate the full consequences of this decision. You are seeing things in moral terms. Morals are arbitrary. They change with time and everyone has a different interpretation of moral behaviour. I'm not suggesting that the charge is not serious, but you are looking at this as an individual case when it is a far broader issue.
This is about Law, which we are all bound by and when a judge makes a decision in Law, that is in variance with existing understandings, they are setting precedence. This has nothing at all to do with De Bellin and Walker. This has to do with an individuals fundamental right to presumption of innocence. By taking the stance this judge has taken she is making an assumption which our society has fought against for generations and that being that they are being presumed guilty until proven innocent. If you cant see that you aren't looking closely enough at what this means. It not only means someone in football can be suspended on any accusation made against them, but the same applies to any employer who decides that someone charged with an offence can be suspended.
I am not an expert in law, but I respect its necessity in society. Change a legal interpretation and it flows down the line to a whole range of issues. I'm tired of talking of the Stewart case. Its self explanatory but what if in 2020 when De Bellin finally has his day in court he is found not guilty. Surely there is a serious case for suing.
I suggest you forget De Bellin and think of what this judge has done to us all. She has empowered anyone in a position of authority as an employer or any field where the person is working, to have the arbitrary right to suspend them pending trial. That is saying they are presumed Guilty, otherwise why are they suspending them. You don't suspend an innocent person. But I would love one of the legal eagles we have to give a clearer explanation.
This is about Law, not morals
I’m a lawyer Bear. I used to practise criminal law and civil litigation so I am not confusing anything. I do understand the law and it was applied as I thought it might be, especially given the onus on the plaintiff.There will be no appeal because there was no mistake at law. The judge was simply applying well documented legal precedents to a particular set of facts.
I hope this clarifies it.She has empowered no one. This is how the law works. The answer to your questions for clarification is very simple.
The right of an employer to take action against an employee has never depended, and never will, on a conviction in a criminal trial. An employer can impose standards of behaviour that fall far short of criminal acts in order to protect their business and brand and can apply those standards as they see fit with the employee always maintaining a right to contest those actions if he or she feels aggrieved. In this case the court has decided the provision is legal on the facts at hand. Not sure how often it needs to be said but this happens every day in the workplace.How could a workplace operate if every piece of behaviour had to be met with a criminal conviction for sanctions to take place. It’s a ridiculous scenario.
You are simply confusing the rights of a defendant in a criminal trial with the rights of an employee under an employment contract. They are two separate things and always will be.
For those who think JDB has been massively slighted , think again.Why don’t we look at how the real world works in this situation.One thing I can tell you from experience is that if DeBellin was not a well known public figure with little flight risk there is a chance he may not even have got bail and I can guarantee the bail conditions would be far more onerous if he did. He has already applied for and received a lightening of the bail restrictions.
And people also need to consider a magistrate has decided he has a Prima Facie case to answer so their is obviously a decent basis to the case against him.
Brett’s case is constantly brought up in this regard, but his case needs to be seen as a terrible abberation rather than the norm. To constantly apply one obvious misapplication of the law like Brett’s to every situation as though it is standard practice and occurs every time is totally and utterly wrong, especially as you yourself are constantly reminding us how this supposedly great system “ usually gets it right “. Brett’s case is a shocking example of the misuse of power by people who should know better, it is NOT the legal system working properly.It is terrible not only in the sense of damage to him but also in the fact that it has made decent people think that this is the norm and just simply apply his result to a situation like this as if it’s a given.Thats simply not the case.Our system is flawed in many ways but to suggest his case was anything but a horrible miscarriage of justice is wrong.
There are hundreds of people who have NOT BEEN CONVICTED living in jail cells for the exact same incredibly serious allegations yet that’s doesnt seem to even rate a mention. Why is there not similar concern for them? They are presumed innocent so what makes De Bellin special ?
Bear can you tell me the difference in this case and why those people not afforded liberty before trial are not suffering the same overwhelming injustice as you suggest JDB is and why is there not a similar fight for their rights? They, also presumed innocent, have by definition also lost their jobs and earning power ( unlike JDB)as well as their liberty due to having an as yet unproven allegation made against them.And I am NOT prejudging JDB. This is how the criminal system works for every person and very often it entails deprivation of liberty or serious impositions on way of life without any guilty verdict anywhere to be seen for twelve months or more, just like in this case.
The simple fact is this bloke is getting 700k and very light bail conditions for the exact same unproven allegation that sees other individuals rotting in prison for twelve months or facing onerous bail conditions after being sacked unceremoniously by their pissed off employer and yet this guy keeping his 700k pay day is supposed to be a momentous day in the legal system!!!
Many who have been in the criminal system or affected by the system would in fact argue he is getting a far better deal than the average punter. In fact It’s not a momentous day. It’s a day where the court decided as they do all the time that an employer had a legal right to protect his business and penalise an employee accordingly. It’s employment law 101. Nothing more nothing less.
This happens ALL THE TIME to common people who are suspended from the workplace on the basis of a complaint for things far more trivial than aggravated rape allegations .The fact he earns 700k and plays a game we are all passionate about is absolutely and totally irrelevant to the application of the law.
For the record I disagree with the rule, mainly on the grounds it’s application is in the hands of one man, a man we know is a bufoon , but it is a legal provision under an employment contract and that just a fact... and there will be no appeal to a court to challenge it.You think this is costly. Try an appeal to the full bench of the Federal Court or a little trundle around the High Court.In any case leave would not be granted as there is nothing to see here in a legal sense.
Btw mate. Love having a bit of discourse like this. Hope you take it in the right spirit. I enjoy your posts always.
