The trouble with the NRL is that it is responding to hysteria among certain elements of the public that have obviously no concept of law or human rights (of course their attitude would quickly change if it affected them). And then for Greenberg to come to court and express anecdotal evidence about his daughter and the Storm boss to pick out of the sky a cost to his club shows a total ineptitude on their part when it comes to legal issues. If the judge rules in their favour, and I doubt she will, she needs to be sacked herself.
This is about Constitutional legal practice and to reach any verdict against that is unconstitutional. Constitutional issues can only be altered by a majority of voters in each and all states following the introduction of a referendum, which itself requires 10,000 people to petition the Federal Govt to initiate a referendum. The NRL is just trying to muddy the waters concerning the right to interfere with an individual rights while deemed innocent under the law until their court judgement.
I don't know what all the fuss is about quite frankly. If the individual is found guilty, the NRL is then free to act. Why the pre-emptive strike? It smacks of knee jerking and total disregard for the players, an attempt to deal with this to make themselves look good at the expense of the welfare of those they are responsible for. Absolutely selfish skulduggery. Shameful. Greenberg's daughter should be ashamed of him.
Maybe a bit over the top Bear.You don’t get to be a Federal Court judge by being less informed than punters like us.If the judge thinks a particular piece of evidence is ridiculous I’m sure it will be disregarded.
This is not some incredibly complicated legal conundrum that will change the face of the law in this country. The judge will be applying well established law to the facts in this case as they are provided in court. It definitely ain’t some land breaking piece of constitutional jurisprudence.
And I’m quite happy to accept the verdict of said judge who has years of experience dealing with matters like these. We love the game and tend to think these are matters of life and death. Im sure the judge will face far more vexing issues than this one.
You are also seriously confusing two separate issues.
De Bellin is NOT being denied the presumption of innocence in relation to his ALLEGED OFFENCE . He is on bail and will maintain that presumption until his trial as per any other defendant in this countries legal system. In fact I would suggest his bail conditions are quite lenient for a case like this.He has not lost this right at all and to suggest otherwise is false.
What has actually happened to De Bellin is he has being stood down on full pay until his situation is cleared up. This happens all the time in employer/ employee situations in an effort to mitigate brand damage.The court is simply determining if the actual rule that has been implemented to achieve this is legally binding as part of his employment contract and a number of factual issues around issues of natural justice will decide that.And Toddy’s evidence and other evidence that seems strange to us all will be assessed by someone who has decades of legal experience as to what constitutes the facts of the case.If it’s garbage it will be treated as garbage.
Last edited: