JDB Federal Court Challenge

[The '47ers]

Serious question.

What happens if JBD is actually found not guilty?? Can he then sue the NRL over their stand down policy given the amount of time he's been forced not to play?

I have no idea, but I sure to hell hope he can sue them. His career is basically done because of all this, and he was just about to represent Australia etc, things that won't happen from here out.

 

[globaleagle]

Serious question.

What happens if JBD is actually found not guilty?? Can he then sue the NRL over their stand down policy given the amount of time he's been forced not to play?

Dunno, but I'm assuming the nrl will hide behind the "but it was a no fault stand down" and due to the seriousness of the 'allegations' our rule is to stand the player down to protect the image of the nrl....unless you play for the broncos.

 

[The Who]

Serious question.

What happens if JBD is actually found not guilty?? Can he then sue the NRL over their stand down policy given the amount of time he's been forced not to play?

Walker didn't.
I realise Walker's alleged incident wasn't as serious and he was stood down/suspended for a much shorter time, so his career wasn't totally screwed like de Bellin's has been.
Imagine how angry de Belin will be at the NRL if this is the outcome?
Relieved, yet filthy.
I too hope he does sue as this NRL rule is wrong imo.

 

[Woodsie]

I have no idea, but I sure to hell hope he can sue them. His career is basically done because of all this, and he was just about to represent Australia etc, things that won't happen from here out.

Like you .. if found innocent .... or more correctly not guilty ... I also hope he sues the NRL ... but I think that is because I hate GreenTurd .... not because I want to see the NRL have to pay money out .. after all it is not GreenTurd's money .. it is the games of Rugby Leagues money ...

... and if DeBellen's case is that he left his pregnant missus at home while he and a mate took a young girl back to an appartment and had "consentual" sex with her ...... I am having a hard time feeling sorry for the situation he finds himself in ....

 

[manly al]

De Belien is still apparently being paid his official Dragons contract money so does not seem too disadvantaged in that area . Disruption to his footy career and possible rep appearance benefits are another matter but taking all circumstances into account , being stood down still seems the most appropriate action . Naturally then also he can have the opportunity for some recourse if eventually deemed not guilty . D T article seemed a bit over the top so might have a grievance there but without being too moralistic , personally do not have too much sympathy for someone to leave their heavily pregnant partner home while having an extended night out on the town or whatever . Whether a crime was committed in the final wash up will no doubt be determined and does seem to be dragging on and probably deserves some more expeditious outcome there but that also unfortunately seems the present nature of the justice system

 

[Tragic Eagle]

The rule that if you are charged with a serious criminal offence carrying a maximum sentence of more than 11 years (like aggravated sexual assault in company which carries a maximum penalty of 20 years) is understandable.

However the way it was hastily introduced ignoring appropriate process for the sake of haste was wrong. The collateral rule which applies to cases which are offences that carry lesser penalties being left the the discretion of the NRL is trouble with a capital "T" particularity when it applies to 95% of cases. IMO this was a bit of cheeky opportunism by the NRL and IMO the manner in which this discretion has been applied to date lacks transparency and smacks of inconsistency and unfairness.

The rule should have only applied to offences with maximum penalties of 11 years or more full stop. Being found not guilty does not equate to being innocent and this is an important distinction. It is a tragedy for those that are wrongly accused and in fact innocent and sadly the justice system is not fool proof. Of course on the other hand there is no sympathy for perpetrators of serious crime. That is the conundrum and the price we pay for the semblance of social order and general safety. I don't believe the NRL are exposed in Jack De Belin's case regardless of the verdict. This is a sad case all round and lets not forget the alleged victim in this case.

 

[Rodo]

Dunno, but I'm assuming the nrl will hide behind the "but it was a no fault stand down" and due to the seriousness of the 'allegations' our rule is to stand the player down to protect the image of the nrl....unless you play for the broncos.

I'm sure Greenberg and the NRL have thought about what would happen if a player was found not guilty after being stood down. They would most likely have something in place which prevents a player from suing them. The player is employed by the NRL so must abide by the NRLs rules.

 

[Harmless27]

Not commenting on the De Belin case in particular - as I don't know all the facts and don't want to bring my bias in to the equation (I don't link the guy, and from the limited knowledge I have i think hes a d#ckhead for treating his partner the way he has)

however;

My question concerns the stand down policy and the mental/emotional toll of being off work for an extended period. Not EVERYONE is motivate purely by their income - for some it is only part of the reason they do certain things. I dare say there are some footballers who actually LIKE playing football, and LIKE scoring trys, winning games, winning premierships, setting records etc.

How would someone (like De Belin) be compensated for the lost time/opportunity to compete and build a career? Not in terms of lost income, but reputation and lost TIME? Imagine if he sits out 5 years..... imagine if Turbo had to sit out 5 years..... or DCE? Or Wally Lewis? Or Mal Meninga. They would have been robbed of the opportunity to forge a great career,a nd become legends.

My point? Anyone who is forced to miss extended time due to this policy and is found 'not guilty' should sue the frikkin pants off the NRL. I certainly would.

They are playing with fire here - a massive out of court settlement (like Izzy) could bring the sport to its knees....

 

[yokahontas]

Not commenting on the De Belin case in particular - as I don't know all the facts and don't want to bring my bias in to the equation (I don't link the guy, and from the limited knowledge I have i think hes a d#ckhead for treating his partner the way he has)

however;

My question concerns the stand down policy and the mental/emotional toll of being off work for an extended period. Not EVERYONE is motivate purely by their income - for some it is only part of the reason they do certain things. I dare say there are some footballers who actually LIKE playing football, and LIKE scoring trys, winning games, winning premierships, setting records etc.

How would someone (like De Belin) be compensated for the lost time/opportunity to compete and build a career? Not in terms of lost income, but reputation and lost TIME? Imagine if he sits out 5 years..... imagine if Turbo had to sit out 5 years..... or DCE? Or Wally Lewis? Or Mal Meninga. They would have been robbed of the opportunity to forge a great career,a nd become legends.

My point? Anyone who is forced to miss extended time due to this policy and is found 'not guilty' should sue the frikkin pants off the NRL. I certainly would.

They are playing with fire here - a massive out of court settlement (like Izzy) could bring the sport to its knees....

It will be interesting to see whether he does sue if found not guilty (and it’s a big ‘if’ ).

The reason is, there would be different evidence used/allowed and different points to be proven if you were suing for defamation, restraint of trade or whatever. And a different judge whose opinion on what should and shouldn’t be presented in court may not be the same as in the current proceedings.

I realise our legal system isn’t quite the same as the US criminal/civil distinction, but it’s an interesting thought nonetheless. OJ Simpson is obviously the most famous example of the prosecution not meeting the required burden of proof in his murder trial, but the civil courts determining that he was responsible for the crimes. Which seems to be the belief most people hold with regard to Mr. Simpson.

If by some stroke of luck/good lawyering/etc you did do something untoward, but you get a ‘not guilty’ verdict...do you risk going after the $$$ and having more sordid detail of what actually occurred being released into the public domain...?

 

[The Who]

The SMH claims that de Belin is suing the Telecrap for defamation over 'rapist' allegation.

 

[urulion]

These situations are complex because there is more than one way to approach this situation, and every person is unique and may have different views/ways to deal with the problem. I personally would be suing the NRL and trying to do an extremely good job at it (not like De Belin's counsel last time).

However, I would be approaching the situation a little different if De Belin was to be found 'not guilty'. If I were St George I would be suing the NRL for damages/ losses for a variety of reasons, and the list could be extensive. I would be joining De Belin as a party to the proceedings as he also suffered a detriment due to this circus of a stand down policy.

I personally would not be focusing on restraint of trade as my main argument, rather, I would be looking in the areas of judicial powers and with what authority does the Turd/NRL believe they have the authority to pass judgement on a player and act as a court? A policy should not discriminate, A policy should not suspend a player for a wrong action, yet excuse another player for a similar wrong action (This would suggest the element of direct, or indirect bias).

A discretionary power to adjudicate and punish an individual only belongs to a court and not to a corporation like the NRL. There are many cases, in particular ancient cases where our judges have clearly outlined that; the only authority in this land to penalise any person is a court. There have also been cases where Military courts have made decisions and punished individuals, however, these have been overturned by our Ch III courts, as they do not posses judicial powers to penalise/punish. There could be a real chance that the NRL could feel some heat in the future, particularly as courts do not like smelly Turds that think they are above our judicial system and walk around acting like judges.

Always remembering that this is apparently a 'NO FAULT STAND DOWN POLICY'. If there is no fault, there is no right to penalise/punish any person..... that is just crazy.

 

[yokahontas]

These situations are complex because there is more than one way to approach this situation, and every person is unique and may have different views/ways to deal with the problem. I personally would be suing the NRL and trying to do an extremely good job at it (not like De Belin's counsel last time).

However, I would be approaching the situation a little different if De Belin was to be found 'not guilty'. If I were St George I would be suing the NRL for damages/ losses for a variety of reasons, and the list could be extensive. I would be joining De Belin as a party to the proceedings as he also suffered a detriment due to this circus of a stand down policy.

I personally would not be focusing on restraint of trade as my main argument, rather, I would be looking in the areas of judicial powers and with what authority does the Turd/NRL believe they have the authority to pass judgement on a player and act as a court? A policy should not discriminate, A policy should not suspend a player for a wrong action, yet excuse another player for a similar wrong action (This would suggest the element of direct, or indirect bias).

A discretionary power to adjudicate and punish an individual only belongs to a court and not to a corporation like the NRL. There are many cases, in particular ancient cases where our judges have clearly outlined that; the only authority in this land to penalise any person is a court. There have also been cases where Military courts have made decisions and punished individuals, however, these have been overturned by our Ch III courts, as they do not posses judicial powers to penalise/punish. There could be a real chance that the NRL could feel some heat in the future, particularly as courts do not like smelly Turds that think they are above our judicial system and walk around acting like judges.

Always remembering that this is apparently a 'NO FAULT STAND DOWN POLICY'. If there is no fault, there is no right to penalise/punish any person..... that is just crazy.

Genuine question @urulion as I’ve got no idea on the subject - has anyone ever, after being found not guilty, taken their employer to court for having imposed a similar paid suspension while they faced criminal charges?

There are just so many major employers I can name off the top of my head who would suspend an employee in De Belin’s situation, and a whole lot of smaller organisations and businesses do the same - sometimes without pay, sometimes an outright sacking. You’d have to think precedents exist.

Even the guy who was eventually found not guilty for chasing and bashing the druggie who broke into his house up Newcastle way was suspended (possibly fired?) from his job as a chef when he was charged (although I’m pretty sure he did get his job back in the end).

 

[The Who]

On a different, yet still legal, matter.
What sort of 'democracy' allows a popularly elected official to pardon criminals, virtually all of whom are friends or have a political connection?
The USA.
I can't believe the President has that much power.
The NRL however? Yes, we all know such power exists

 

[urulion]

Genuine question @urulion as I’ve got no idea on the subject - has anyone ever, after being found not guilty, taken their employer to court for having imposed a similar paid suspension while they faced criminal charges?

There are just so many major employers I can name off the top of my head who would suspend an employee in De Belin’s situation, and a whole lot of smaller organisations and businesses do the same - sometimes without pay, sometimes an outright sacking. You’d have to think precedents exist.

Even the guy who was eventually found not guilty for chasing and bashing the druggie who broke into his house up Newcastle way was suspended (possibly fired?) from his job as a chef when he was charged (although I’m pretty sure he did get his job back in the end).

Hey Yokahontas hope you are well.

Very genuine question, as I am unaware and do not have a case/cases that I know of where an employee has sued after being found not guilty (although they may exist). However, what I can say, is that if you are going to sue your employer it will be for damages/compensation, or if you were fired you may seek to have your employment re-instated.

To sue for damages and receive compensation you must show the court that the compensation you are seeking is in line with the damage suffered and show proof of this. For example, a chef that is stood down (with pay), may not suffer any other damage as he is being paid until he/she has been found not guilty by the courts. Unless he/she has any other loss due to the standing down, he/she has really no recourse for further compensation.

When we talk about De Belin and St George this is a little bit different, the NRL made this stand down policy on the run, in fact, he was stood down and the policy was not even in place. By De Belin being stood down he has probably lost endorsements, sponsorship and even match payments like state of origin games and representing Australia.

Then the telecrap running with a story that tarnishes his reputation and potentially his career, we are talking about basically destroying a players career. A chef may well get a job in another restaurant if he/she really wanted to, this would not be the case for De Belin where he can go to another club and get a job. The ramifications would also flow onto St George as his club and a franchisee of the NRL.

By the NRL forcing him to stand down (when he clearly did not want to), the NRL are showing no confidence that he is not guilty. We now have ample proof that the NRL want to see footage, look at briefs of evidence etc etc so the NO FAULT POLICY is a term used to disguise the bleeding contrary.

De Belin and St George would not be suing under employment law as such, but rather contract and tort law.

 

[The Wheel]

On a different, yet still legal, matter.
What sort of 'democracy' allows a popularly elected official to pardon criminals, virtually all of whom are friends or have a political connection?
The USA.
I can't believe the President has that much power.
The NRL however? Yes, we all know such power exists

I think Indonesia have similar presidential powers, certainly to reduce sentences but also to pardon/commute as well.

We live in a strange world

 

[manly al]

I think Indonesia have similar presidential powers, certainly to reduce sentences but also to pardon/commute as well.

We live in a strange world

Probably a couple of other countries as well including Thailand , can understand slightly reducing a sentence for a less serious crime but a full pardon , that really is an overriding power .

 

[urulion]

Probably a couple of other countries as well including Thailand , can understand slightly reducing a sentence for a less serious crime but a full pardon , that really is an overriding power .

This happens often in the NRL

 

[HoldenV8]

Walker didn't.
I realise Walker's alleged incident wasn't as serious and he was stood down/suspended for a much shorter time, so his career wasn't totally screwed like de Bellin's has been.
Imagine how angry de Belin will be at the NRL if this is the outcome?
Relieved, yet filthy.
I too hope he does sue as this NRL rule is wrong imo.

Other than those who know him and us Manly fans, like what seems to be the case with JDB, everyone with an opinion had Snake pegged as guilty as well, yet he was proven innocent. But regardless of the outcome it did irreparable damage to his reputation as a person. Even today a good number of opposition fans and even those who don't follow the NRL still label Snake as a rapist. And the same will happen with JDB regardless of the outcome of this, something not helped by the NRL's stand down policy which no matter how Greenturd tries to spin it is basically saying "we think you're guilty so you're not allowed to play".

But, on the off chance that he is found innocent, given the amount of time he has been forced to sit out of the game regardless that he's still being paid, I think there would be the very real possibility that he could sue the NRL.

For the record, I wasn't there so I have zero idea if JDB is guilty or innocent. If he's proven guilty beyond any reasonable doubt then he deserves everything he's got coming to him. But if he turns out to be innocent or is found not guilty (often they can be two different things).....what then?

 

[yokahontas]

Hey Yokahontas hope you are well.

Very genuine question, as I am unaware and do not have a case/cases that I know of where an employee has sued after being found not guilty (although they may exist). However, what I can say, is that if you are going to sue your employer it will be for damages/compensation, or if you were fired you may seek to have your employment re-instated.

To sue for damages and receive compensation you must show the court that the compensation you are seeking is in line with the damage suffered and show proof of this. For example, a chef that is stood down (with pay), may not suffer any other damage as he is being paid until he/she has been found not guilty by the courts. Unless he/she has any other loss due to the standing down, he/she has really no recourse for further compensation.

When we talk about De Belin and St George this is a little bit different, the NRL made this stand down policy on the run, in fact, he was stood down and the policy was not even in place. By De Belin being stood down he has probably lost endorsements, sponsorship and even match payments like state of origin games and representing Australia.

Then the telecrap running with a story that tarnishes his reputation and potentially his career, we are talking about basically destroying a players career. A chef may well get a job in another restaurant if he/she really wanted to, this would not be the case for De Belin where he can go to another club and get a job. The ramifications would also flow onto St George as his club and a franchisee of the NRL.

By the NRL forcing him to stand down (when he clearly did not want to), the NRL are showing no confidence that he is not guilty. We now have ample proof that the NRL want to see footage, look at briefs of evidence etc etc so the NO FAULT POLICY is a term used to disguise the bleeding contrary.

De Belin and St George would not be suing under employment law as such, but rather contract and tort law.

I suspect that it might be difficult to prove loss of the ‘top-up’ income - both from rep selections and from sponsorships/endorsements. As far as rep selection is concerned, there’s never a guarantee you’ll hold your position - both because a better player may emerge (Cameron Murray, come on down), or you could’ve been ruled out through injury at any point. Anything to do with sponsorships/endorsements is muddy in terms of proving whether they dumped you because of the charges, because you were stood down, or some other reason. It’ll be interesting to see how it plays out, if anything does eventuate along those lines, that’s for sure.

 

[manlyfan76]

Other than those who know him and us Manly fans, like what seems to be the case with JDB, everyone with an opinion had Snake pegged as guilty as well, yet he was proven innocent. But regardless of the outcome it did irreparable damage to his reputation as a person. Even today a good number of opposition fans and even those who don't follow the NRL still label Snake as a rapist. And the same will happen with JDB regardless of the outcome of this, something not helped by the NRL's stand down policy which no matter how Greenturd tries to spin it is basically saying "we think you're guilty so you're not allowed to play".

But, on the off chance that he is found innocent, given the amount of time he has been forced to sit out of the game regardless that he's still being paid, I think there would be the very real possibility that he could sue the NRL.

For the record, I wasn't there so I have zero idea if JDB is guilty or innocent. If he's proven guilty beyond any reasonable doubt then he deserves everything he's got coming to him. But if he turns out to be innocent or is found not guilty (often they can be two different things).....what then?

Appeal.