Loyal Eagle
Member
Legal counsel withdraws his services after email ping pong fails to uncover the technical information relating to the charges and judicial process. Question; 'does the NRL judicial process lack the integrity required to offer the accused a fair hearing?' As a result is may be denied natural justice?
Let me explain; there are a number of proofs required to establish a larceny (stealing offence) including having the mens rea (mental intention) of permanently depriving the owner of their property. Therefore, borrowing is not stealing because you intend to return the item (at some point) in the future.. so you go to court and show you were borrowing the item not keeping it forever = not guilty but guilty of misappropriation if you decide to steal it after it was originally leant to you.. different defence required and NRL need to prove guilt.
If our representative was asking for the required information (proofs) they will use to establish innocence/ guilt and this was not available, he may not be prepared to mount a credible legal defence. Grade 1 striking the head of opponent.. proof is 'did the player come into contact with the head' Video evidence is clear = guilty.. easy! If they are not provided because the broad subjective offence of 'bringing game into disrepute' and nobody can define how this is to be assessed, then clearly the charges and punishment (validity of the decision) would be questionable. Evidence from telegraph newspaper poll.. positive for the game!
Only guessing, but if the sin bin was incorrectly determined, then all matters after this point may be inadmissable, as evidence because the duty of care from the NRL officials is where negligence may fall for the incident, eg. not escorting players to a penalty box as per ice hockey? Particularly given these incidents have previously occurred (Dowling v Tamati sideline altercation..) Is this why referees are being called to give evidence?
Unfortunately, after the guilty verdict.. the only option is to challenge the decision in the international court of arbitration for sport (see cases where positive drug testing results are overturned on appeal) The positive would be all charges like these in the future would be framed more clearly for others that follow.
Or alternatively Gallop could provide leadership.. hope this is on the agenda for Wayne Pearce as an ex player on the NRL Commission!
Let me explain; there are a number of proofs required to establish a larceny (stealing offence) including having the mens rea (mental intention) of permanently depriving the owner of their property. Therefore, borrowing is not stealing because you intend to return the item (at some point) in the future.. so you go to court and show you were borrowing the item not keeping it forever = not guilty but guilty of misappropriation if you decide to steal it after it was originally leant to you.. different defence required and NRL need to prove guilt.
If our representative was asking for the required information (proofs) they will use to establish innocence/ guilt and this was not available, he may not be prepared to mount a credible legal defence. Grade 1 striking the head of opponent.. proof is 'did the player come into contact with the head' Video evidence is clear = guilty.. easy! If they are not provided because the broad subjective offence of 'bringing game into disrepute' and nobody can define how this is to be assessed, then clearly the charges and punishment (validity of the decision) would be questionable. Evidence from telegraph newspaper poll.. positive for the game!
Only guessing, but if the sin bin was incorrectly determined, then all matters after this point may be inadmissable, as evidence because the duty of care from the NRL officials is where negligence may fall for the incident, eg. not escorting players to a penalty box as per ice hockey? Particularly given these incidents have previously occurred (Dowling v Tamati sideline altercation..) Is this why referees are being called to give evidence?
Unfortunately, after the guilty verdict.. the only option is to challenge the decision in the international court of arbitration for sport (see cases where positive drug testing results are overturned on appeal) The positive would be all charges like these in the future would be framed more clearly for others that follow.
Or alternatively Gallop could provide leadership.. hope this is on the agenda for Wayne Pearce as an ex player on the NRL Commission!
