JDB Federal Court Challenge

[susan]

I agree with comments above by @susan (good to see you back posting in time for season kickoff!)

The only qualification I make is regarding

re the "minor' indiscretions" (ie those carrying maximum penalties of less than 11 years) it is now quite blatantly obvious this is not 'no fault', quite the opposite. NRL assesses the fault when exercising discretion. Not saying this is inappropriate, just saying it is in no way shape or form 'no fault'.


Agreed. Or how about the Integrity Unit? Seems like the appropriate body to make a call. Having this power wielded solely by the bloke who (1) gives personal references to some players, and who (2), due to being CEO of the NRL, has a vested interest in certain clubs doing well for various strategic reasons, makes the NRL look amateurish at best, or more likely corrupt.

Agree totally . Turd is obviously assessing fault and the name of the rule is ridiculous. Why they called it that is ludicrous.

It’s so simple.
Give the task to commission or integrity unit, supply them with clear guidelines and assess on a case by case basis. Common sense dictates some assessment of probable fault takes place in all these decisions. Extremely serious criminal charges for specific crimes will I think inevitably result in JDBs situation of suspension till resolution but the shambolic inconsistency re Siva , Reynolds, Walker etc at the lower level of indiscretions needs to be fixed quickly.But as the saying goes common sense ain’t that common.

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

Agree! If players have aspirations of NRL fame and fortune then keep your noses clean, a serious allegation obviously damages the game, so stand-down on full pay ... and good luck with your next contract negotiations.

 

[urulion]

Same as the cops, if they act reasonably on evidence available to them are you suggesting they can be sued?

Firstly, you are mixing cops with employers (A mixture of private law and public law). Suing an employer who does not have a right under statute to act reasonably on evidence, is vastly different to someone that has that right under statute. So, not sure where you are going with the comparison regarding the NRL and JDB

 

[susan]

Are you assuming the allegations are falsely made? A court finding of 'not guilty' is no basis for such a claim, as you well know, due to the burden of proof in criminal cases falling on the prosecution!

Also agree. A finding of Jack being not guilty beyond reasonable doubt in no way means the NRL can be sued successfully. The court has ALREADY found against JDB in that the NRL had the right via their contract provisions to suspend Jack under the rules of the NRL based on the facts at the time.Given also the fact that the prosecution believed they had strong enough evidence to secure a conviction , it would be incredibly difficult to prove that the NRL acted unreasonably in applying a suspension with pay till resolution which is the almost universal way of dealing with these matters.

I’d hate to be funding that litigation.It would mean upon a not guilty verdict almost every employer in the country could be sued for what is basically a standard practice plus the NRL has been found to have acted legally by the Federal Court at the time of the suspension.
You’d have to hate money.

 

[manlyfan76]

We were recently contacted by the police about an employee, he had been (according to the police) using his workphone to attempt to do something abhorrent.
After getting advice it was decided to sack him for what were minor breaches, and not because he was up on multiple charges. It was very ugly situation and while the police could not be completely open with the details we felt our actions were necessary.

Id hate to be an NRL club where you would have to be expecting a player to be up on charges of some description every year. Let alone the nrl commission.

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

Firstly, you are mixing cops with employers (A mixture of private law and public law). Suing an employer who does not have a right under statute to act reasonably on evidence, is vastly different to someone that has that right under statute. So, not sure where you are going with the comparison regarding the NRL and JDB

Employers act reasonably (or they do not) under employment law, awards, and contracts of employment. Do they not?

 

[susan]

We were recently contacted by the police about an employee, he had been (according to the police) using his workphone to attempt to do something abhorrent.
After getting advice it was decided to sack him for what were minor breaches, and not because he was up on multiple charges. It was very ugly situation and while the police could not be completely open with the details we felt our actions were necessary.

Id hate to be an NRL club where you would have to be expecting a player to be up on charges of some description every year. Let alone the nrl commission.

A great example of the real world in action. It’s all very well to talk about the right to a fair trial etc but the reality is very different and tough decisions are made every day.
Given the employer usually has nothing to do with the acts that led to charges being laid, this idea that the employee has an inalienable right to suffer no consequences at all till a trial maybe a couple of years years away, regardless of the damage to a business’ that results from the actions , all sounds very nice but it is simply fantasy in reality. Hence the middle ground is often the option. Suspended till it works itself out or in smaller more vulnerable businesses , sometimes a sacking.

 

[Bearfax]

I come from a legal background though not a solicitor. I think we have close to the best legal system going around, but it has flaws. But the issue of presumption of innocence, which I've argued about before, is paramount to our fundamental rights. It means we cant be judged guilty of an offence, no matter how strong the case, until the court makes its decision. I wont go into the importance of this fundamental right in depth, but only to say it protects us from vigilantism and discriminatory action through acts by the public and authorities that tarnish our lives, through a usually poor knowledge of the facts in the matter that only come out through trial.

It is important that we don't take a moral stance on DeBellin's behaviour, if his actions were not illegal, no matter that we may be disgusted by his general behaviour. If we do then we are no better than Folau, sprouting forth a moral code that in reality is a cultural construct, not some set of values from a higher entity. Morals are important, but they aren't infallible, and only exist to ensure stability within a culture. But as I've always said, one mans fish is another man's poisson (check the French).

As has been so often pointed out before, we need to again remember what happened to Brett Stewart. It was a public circus that, seriously damaged Stewart's confidence and reputation, not to mention his personal life and probably contributed to the break up of his relationship and a loss of a huge amount of his earnings. The public discussion and media microscope operated on limited and biased information and conjecture, just as is happening now. Thing is we don't know if DeBellin committed a vile offence or not. Whatever his moral behaviour beyond that, is none of our business. People famed in the community always have their personal lives torn apart and critically analysed. We forget they are also human, with human feelings, personal lives, hopes and dreams and quite frankly if we are to look at this from a Christian perspective for example, we should remember Christ said 'Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone.' We have no right to judge and quite frankly I think the NRL is flawed in its actions.

DeBellin will be punished and he will loose everything if he is guilty. Justice, as best that can be given in this system of ours, will be served. But to pre-empt that judgement in my opinion is in itself questionable morally. Of course that depends on what you consider moral and what is not. Its all perspective really.

 

[urulion]

Employers act reasonably (or they do not) under employment law, awards, and contracts of employment. Do they not?

It would be assumed that we all have an obligation to act reasonably regardless of who you are, don't you think? You spoke about acting reasonably ON EVIDENCE referring to criminal responsibility, and suing police.

An employer can rely on evidence if the employee agrees with the allegation (which JDB has not) or, until a court hands down a verdict.

Further you talk about acting reasonably under employment law.... where has Greenturd/NRL acted reasonably and in a just manner as an employer in all of his stand down policy findings? where has he explained how he came to that decision? Pleaseeeeeeeeee reasonably and just my left foot

 

[40 years an eagle]

Should employers be entitled to enforce stand-downs whether they are paid or unpaid until guilt is proven?

Does that not go against our given right of innocence until guilt is proven?

Does standing down employees charged really minimise the corporate damage or does the extra debate and ensuing publicity do more damage than allowing the legal process to run it's course untampered?

How can a contract that waives you of one of your few basic rights be legal?

 

[urulion]

Also agree. A finding of Jack being not guilty beyond reasonable doubt in no way means the NRL can be sued successfully. The court has ALREADY found against JDB in that the NRL had the right via their contract provisions to suspend Jack under the rules of the NRL based on the facts at the time.Given also the fact that the prosecution believed they had strong enough evidence to secure a conviction , it would be incredibly difficult to prove that the NRL acted unreasonably in applying a suspension with pay till resolution which is the almost universal way of dealing with these matters.

I’d hate to be funding that litigation.It would mean upon a not guilty verdict almost every employer in the country could be sued for what is basically a standard practice plus the NRL has been found to have acted legally by the Federal Court at the time of the suspension.
You’d have to hate money.

I agree it does not mean the NRL can be sued successfully by JDB. He was not successful in his court challenge for restraint of trade under Australian Consumer law. Unless the NRL can persuade a court that JDB is a vexatious litigant, nothing stopping him from making a further claim, or being joined as a party against the NRL.

I'd hate to see the players union waste so much of their time and funds by taking the NRL to court to overturn such a policy if the court has already made a ruling that the NRL had the right to suspend players and there was no further recourse to challenge the NRL on any other legal argument.

I would be very happy to fund this litigation if the resources were available. I believe Toddy acted grossly unjust with a policy that didn't even exist at the time. The applicant would be the Dragons and JDB would be joined as a party to the proceedings. There is no need for either party to wait until JDB's trial concludes and restraint of trade would not be an agitated argument.

 

[40 years an eagle]

I would be very happy to fund this litigation if the resources were available. I believe Toddy acted grossly unjust with a policy that didn't even exist at the time.

He may well have "acted grossly unjust" in the eyes of the law by your or our understanding but does not De Bellend's signing of a contract with the NRL where he agreed to cop anything the NRL dream up negate any perceived NRL wrongdoing?

Contract law?

 

[The Who]

And just to prove that the NRL's "discretion' policy favours certain clubs:
Parramatta flyer Maika Sivo will not be stood down under the NRL's no-fault policy, with the Fijian winger set to be cleared to play in round one.

The Sydney Morning Herald reports that sources close to the Sivo case expect NRL chief executive Todd Greenberg to approve the decision to allow the NRL's top try-scorer to play despite currently facing charges in his home country.

The league had originally decided against passing verdict on Sivo, preferring to wait until after the matter was in court on February 17, but that has now been adjourned until next month.

Maika Sivo was the find of last season according to Andrew Johns. (Getty)
Sivo's case will now be held on March 12, the same day the Eels open their 2020 campaign against arch rivals the Canterbury Bulldogs – although Sivo is not require to appear in court.

While Sivo is expected to be free to play the season opener, he may still be sanctioned later depending on the court's verdict.

Sivo was charged with indecent annoyance after allegedly touching the skirt of a waitress on Boxing Day during a trip home to Fiji.

 

[The Who]

And again...
The NRL has confirmed court-bound Canberra centre Curtis Scott is free to play in the Raiders' NRL trial against Canterbury on Saturday.

 

[wombatgc]

Thank you kindly, Young? I wish I still was lololololololol 🙂 , I have been doing this for a little while now.

You gotta take the compliments how ever they come @urulion .
Love reading the back and forth legal jargon that you guys use.

 

[MissKate]

So out of the few that have been stood down under the ‘no fault farce’, is walker the only one to have been found not guilty. Of course JDB is pending. May was stood down but was found guilty. Who else. I am guessing walker would be feeling a tad p***ed

 

[wombatgc]

How much of this mess do we equate to Greenslime, and how much to "Dud Beattie"?

 

[47MVEagle]

What a joke.

Punk in drublic, assaulting 2 police officers, free to play in round 1.

NOTHING TO SEE HERE.

 

[HoldenV8]

If you ever wanted proof of the NRL's bias towards (or should that be against?) certain clubs, there you have it.

Walker was facing a DV charge and was stood down without a second thought and ended up missing 9 games. Sivo and Scott on the other hand are free to play.

Scott (allegedly, have to say that don't we.....) punched an on duty cop while he was drunk. Sivo was charged with indecent assault. Together they will likely miss zero games.

Consistency is extremely overrated where Greenturd is concerned.

 

[40 years an eagle]

If you ever wanted proof of the NRL's bias towards (or should that be against?) certain clubs, there you have it.

Walker was facing a DV charge and was stood down without a second thought and ended up missing 9 games. Sivo and Scott on the other hand are free to play.

Scott (allegedly, have to say that don't we.....) punched an on duty cop while he was drunk.

Dylan was stood down because he was charged with violence against a woman.

I'm sure I read that the 2 officers involved in Scott's incident were female so why hasn't he been subjected to the same fate?