Manase Fainu

[SeaEagleRock8]

Bail is about ensuring attendance at court.

Ensuring the accused turns up to court is only one of the concerns to be considered in deciding whether to grant bail. In some cases it is the primary concern, but in many others* it is not. Which I'm sure you know!

My only purpose in referring to bail is because it shows there can be rather drastic and harsh consequences of being charged, despite the presumption of innocence. Which you acknowledge. Which tends to undercut your argument!


*I've no doubt you are well aware of this, but for anyone else interested - aside from risk a person won't come to court, other risks a court has to consider when determining bail are: protection of victims and the community; risk of committing further serious offences; and risk of interfering with witnesses or evidence. Not to mention that you can't even make a bail application nowadays if you're charged with a show cause offence, without first satisfying the court that your detention would be unjustified!

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

Now in relation to the no fault issue, I offer the following information. The area that is unclear relates to the impact on the business, which is the reason the High Court judge determined the decision she did. But this aspect is somewhat vague under the law. I suggest you read the following

Can I Terminate An Employee Who Has Been Charged For A Criminal Conviction | Employsure

Can you terminate an employee charged with a criminal offence? This depends on the crime and whether they are convicted. Here is the correct procedure.

employsure.com.au

Thanks but I don't have the time. Pretty sure Debelin challenged the policy in court and lost, but would be happy to hear why you think that was wrong

 

[ALinda]

Your informative posts are appreciated @Bearfax and @SeaEagleRock8 on the judicial system which not only helps understand the process for Fainu, De Belin, etc, but also explains things for another unrelated matter. Thank you.

 

[Bearfax]

Thanks but I don't have the time. Pretty sure Debelin challenged the policy in court and lost, but would be happy to hear why you think that was wrong

Not wrong SER8, just that I feel the issue is open to various interpretations and the High Court judge chose one interpretation that suited the employer.. The attachment I sent was quite short and was just describing the elements of determining what rights we have under the law if charged with an offence. If the person is convicted and such action is taken, its a totally different issue.

I am not firstly looking at the DeBellin case from a moral perspective, but rather a legal perspective as I was trained to do. My gut feeling about Debellin is that there was a better than 50/50 chance he was guilty, at least in certain elements but there was insufficient evidence. But that is the limitation of the legal system and in the end we have to accept the final ruling, even despite two hung jury outcomes.

The issue is actually quite apart from DeBellin and Fainu. It relates to how the law is interpreted. If you read the attachment you will read about the butcher who dismissed his employee because he was charged with accessory to murder. The court found that the employee had been unfairly dismissed, and the employer was ordered to pay compensation.

Now that employer had just as much right to argue as the League did regarding impact on his business operations. Here was someone being charged with a very serious matter, which he could consider would adversely affect his business, cause customers to avoid his store etc, Similarly the League argued that having the player playing would detrimentally affect crowd and sponsorship support. Yet the earlier case resulted in a decision for the employee, the latter for the employer. It is generally argued by Fair Trading that the former decision was correct. Therein lies the ambiguity, exacerbated by DeBellin now being exonerated. Sure he was continued to be paid, but by his club, not the League, and had his club chosen to challenge his contract it would have been an interesting court matter given the No Fault determination.

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

Interesting, Bear. Although when I followed that link just now it doesn't go to a High Court decision, just to an information page about terminating an employee. And of course Debelin wasn't terminated, he simply was put on restricted duties to in effect take him out of the public eye. Nevertheless, as I say, interesting.

 

[Bearfax]

Ensuring the accused turns up to court is only one of the concerns to be considered in deciding whether to grant bail. In some cases it is the primary concern, but in many others* it is not. Which I'm sure you know!

My only purpose in referring to bail is because it shows there can be rather drastic and harsh consequences of being charged, despite the presumption of innocence. Which you acknowledge. Which tends to undercut your argument!


*I've no doubt you are well aware of this, but for anyone else interested - aside from risk a person won't come to court, other risks a court has to consider when determining bail are: protection of victims and the community; risk of committing further serious offences; and risk of interfering with witnesses or evidence. Not to mention that you can't even make a bail application nowadays if you're charged with a show cause offence, without first satisfying the court that your detention would be unjustified!

I accept what you are saying here but I thought I had addressed this is the issue of police evidence at the local court committal hearings. One of the matters I was involved in on many occasions was domestic violence issues. At Bankstown Court on Fridays, the court was always packed with such matters. So where do you draw the line. If you detained those being charged you would need many many more gaols. There has to be a pragmatic perspective on such matters. That's why we have AVO (Apprehended Violence Orders) and they are in the thousands, each with various conditions including staying a significant distance from the alleged victim. The risk of breaking an AVO is a prison sentence, apart from the original charge. Of course its an often flawed process, partly because of the difficulty in enforcement, but also so many of the victims choose to reconcile. Sometimes its neighbour disputes that can become seriously concerning. I had one matter where over one hundred incidents had been noted in police incident reports regarding one family and disputes with several neighbours, and yet they were still there.

Certainly there are some occasions when victims and witnesses are intimidated. Not that often but it happens. The trouble is even if the accused is being held in custody, there are often others who can still do the intimidating in the community. The system isn't perfect. But generally those who are considered most likely of being guilty, have a history of such matters, have a propensity for violence, fail to meet bail conditions etc will end up in custody, and certainly risk is a factor, but secondary to the question of attending court as required.

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

Fine let's not argue a point that has zero bearing on Manase or anything to do with footy. However I shudder to think of the free legal advice you gave your parolees over all those years 😱
lol

 

[globaleagle]

Fine let's not argue a point that has zero bearing on Manase or anything to do with footy. However I shudder to think of the free legal advice you gave your parolees over all those years 😱
lol

Especially since your advice is probably up around the 1k mark!

lolz

edit: I say 1k with slight trepidation... unrelated but mrs ge once said to a lawyer friend of ours that "well who could afford $500 an hour like you probably charge?"

He looked put out and said "wtf, when I was in hong kong my rates were in the thousands per hour!"

 

[Bearfax]

Fine let's not argue a point that has zero bearing on Manase or anything to do with footy. However I shudder to think of the free legal advice you gave your parolees over all those years 😱
lol

Following The Wheels comment I accept I've over expressed the issue. All I was seeking was a little respect and recognition that there are no rights and wrongs just perspectives. I've leave it at that. Thanks The Wheel for subtly suggesting I cut the crap and get onto the issue.

 

[The Wheel]

Let’s change the subject- did Manase do it or not 🙂

 

[40 years an eagle]

Let’s change the subject- did Manase do it or not 🙂

Only 2 people know for sure and it's likely they are the only ones who ever know.




Thanks for changing the subject buddy.

 

[Highflier]

Let’s change the subject- did Manase do it or not 🙂

Looking on the sunny side/or viewing the glass half full/and seeing beyond the horizon/and living in a fools paradise ,,,,,,,lets hope not

 

[Bearfax]

Let’s change the subject- did Manase do it or not 🙂

Sorry guys. I just felt I had to clear the air. You are quite right this is about Manase. Has he been a bad boy or a victim of mistaken identity. Don't know. Sorry. Cant help you

 

[Peter C]

Let’s change the subject- did Manase do it or not 🙂

I think it's in the same category as Dylan Walker, did he do everything they said he did?, form your own conclusion.

 

[40 years an eagle]

Has he been a bad boy or a victim of mistaken identity.

Apparently there is more than one witness saying he did it so I guess it is more bad boy or victim of a framing.

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

Following The Wheels comment I accept I've over expressed the issue. All I was seeking was a little respect and recognition that there are no rights and wrongs just perspectives. I've leave it at that. Thanks The Wheel for subtly suggesting I cut the crap and get onto the issue.

You always have my respect, even when we disagree, for example on matters of opinion. Or about what is a matter of opinion!
Not too long now till the kid's trial, I wish we had a DSM5 attending to give us daily reports!!

 

[XV-1]

Let’s change the subject- did Manase do it or not 🙂

Good idea.

Can u run a poll. Would be intriguing what everyone here thinks.

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

Apparently there is more than one witness saying he did it so I guess it is more bad boy or victim of a framing.

The number of witnesses doesn't mean much!

 

[manly al]

The number of witnesses doesn't mean much!

Didn 't Manase have a sling on at the time of the alleged incident or was that just speculation . Not that that would influence matters relating to it in general but just an interesting or associated aspect . Maybe a good reverse scenario case to present like in Harrison Ford "s movie ' The Fugitive ' i . e the one armed man did" t do it .

 

[40 years an eagle]

The number of witnesses doesn't mean much!

I think you missed the point buddy. Irregardless of how many witnesses there are pointing the finger him; they are either telling the truth and he did it, or they are framing him. The point was "frame" as opposed to Bear's "mistaken identity" that I quoted.