Manase Fainu
- Thread starter Sir Pigman
- Start date
The better Robbo
Bencher
I would argue standing them down actually brings greater attention the the game. How many times have we heard about De Bellin and Fainu since they were stood down? I don't think if they were playing the charges would be highlighted as you say...
Nordburg
First Grader
To be fair,there’s been bugger all coverage of Fainu’s situation,especially compared to JDB.The last year and a half,whenever the media have spoken about Manly’s inability to win games without TomT or the rare occasion they talk about the injury list they had during that time,Fainu’s absence is neglected
It is a bit ironic that the automatic stand-down was brought in by the NRL as a response to the burgeoning complaints of misogynist player behaviour and offences against women. We don't really get that many stabbings in rugby league.
Shoe1
Journey Man
I think if it is relatively clear cut go with a judge. If there is doubt and conflicting stories go for a jury and bamboozle them.
Although I read that her counsel Margaret Cuneen said that they will consider the Judge only option. To get it done sooner.
Would have to pay him, it’s the right thing to do.
I think I've watch too many episodes of law and order as it probably doesn't count here but 'there' the defendant has a right to a speedy trial so b/s like.......
But Crown prosecutor Emma Curran said he lived on the outskirts of Adelaide with no computer and that South Australian courts were prioritising local matters due to Covid restrictions.
Ms Curran also said the alleged victim would be away on a church “mission” until at least July next year.
would not be accepted.
In fact if I was a judge and that was brought to me I'd give the prosecutor a serve and tell them to get it sorted or we're proceeding without that goose (I mean victim).
You can't just go "oh I'm busy" and expect the courts to wait for your earliest convenience.
"Hi, err we're still waiting for Jimmy Hoffa to appear, won't be long now, stay tuned."
But Crown prosecutor Emma Curran said he lived on the outskirts of Adelaide with no computer and that South Australian courts were prioritising local matters due to Covid restrictions.
Ms Curran also said the alleged victim would be away on a church “mission” until at least July next year.
would not be accepted.
In fact if I was a judge and that was brought to me I'd give the prosecutor a serve and tell them to get it sorted or we're proceeding without that goose (I mean victim).
You can't just go "oh I'm busy" and expect the courts to wait for your earliest convenience.
"Hi, err we're still waiting for Jimmy Hoffa to appear, won't be long now, stay tuned."
SeaEagle21
Bencher
Yep, and who knows if he'll get to court next year in the world we live in today.
Who knows if he'll be the same player if he comes out of this?
Knowing our luck if he goes to court and is found not guilty he'll probably announce he'll be off for a mormon mission for 2 yrs so he might come back before he turns 30 lol
Last edited:
Supreme Leader
Uber L77T playa
Law is about who sells the best story. Really the phrase "the truth will set you free" really doesn't apply. It's about selling your argument. With a judge , they are one persons view of the presented facts or story. The Judge through their experience will come to a decision based on previous cases and the chances of likelihood in most instances and not put up with crap. With a jury in Australia you need to convince 11 people or 2 people of guilt or innocence. You can get convicted with 11 jurors or set free with 2 jurors. Hence if you have a story or there is confusion, you would go for a jury trial as you only need 2 jurors not to be convicted as a jury have normal people who will listen to the evidence and getting agreement is really a hard sell. Probably why there are some people on the street who shouldn't because of the system.
At end of day it depends on which Judge you get and then decide which way to go. I'd say that the judge listed for case has a tougher line on these type events and so the defence has gone for a jury who won't convict or can't make up it's mind.
Personal belief it will go ahead next year, be a hung jury, then wait 12 month for a retrial to happen again then Police Prosecutor will discontinue....sound familiar. I'm a cynic so I reckon it is all about billable hours....Lawyer's get richer , careers reputations get ruined.
Harmless27
Reserve Grader
Pardon my ignorance (because I really don't know, but can't read back through 77 pages to find out);
How much are we paying Fainu now? And do we get cap relief whilst he is stood down?
If we DON'T get cap relief - what a joke! Why did we resign someone to use up money and never get him to play?
if we DO get cap relief - why don't we triple his pay (pay him in advance) so we can make him cheap if/when he 'gets off'?
We are getting 'kangaroo edward' here... we need to make this work for US!
How much are we paying Fainu now? And do we get cap relief whilst he is stood down?
If we DON'T get cap relief - what a joke! Why did we resign someone to use up money and never get him to play?
if we DO get cap relief - why don't we triple his pay (pay him in advance) so we can make him cheap if/when he 'gets off'?
We are getting 'kangaroo edward' here... we need to make this work for US!
Pretty much!
Yes although of course they are supposed to assess the case based only on the evidence in this case! Same as jurors are instructed to do
Yes I know what you mean, but of course the onus is on the prosecution to do the convincing. The accused doesn't have to convince anyone or prove anything, the aim of the accused is simply to raise a reasonable doubt.
There is no particular judge yet allocated to hear the case because it couldn't go ahead. Will depend which judges are around at the time it finally kicks off (whenever that is!)
ManlyTragic
Bencher
40 nil
It's only a game ...
I think it is @ $425,000. If he was playing, this would be below market value. There appears to be a lack of clarity re compensation for stood down players: "There will be no automatic salary cap relief for clubs affected by any player being stood down, but clubs can apply for help on a case-by-case basis."
I presume the Sea Eagles are supporting Manase because they believe he is not guilty & also because his has three talented younger brothers. Sione, a prop, was awarded best player for the Blues U18s in 2019 & Latu, a five eighth, was awarded best player in this years Harold Matthews comp.
Last edited:
Supreme Leader
Uber L77T playa
That's probably why he has been charged with numerous offences to try and get one to stick?
Thought he was given a lady Judge, but could be wrong.
Yes you're right there was a judge there on Monday and she would have run the trial if it was able to start then, but there's usually more than one trial listed each week in each court so would still depend on which matter had priority, etc. In any event I'm pretty sure you'd always want a jury for this sort of matter and I'm sure Fainu's lawyers would have worked out their attitude to that issue well in advance of Monday.
As to the number of charges, I forget exactly what he's charged with but would be quite improper for the Crown to include any on the final indictment that they didn't think they could prove. (Not to say that would never happen!)
As to the number of charges, I forget exactly what he's charged with but would be quite improper for the Crown to include any on the final indictment that they didn't think they could prove. (Not to say that would never happen!)
I have no doubt Manly want to keep all the Fainu boys together and see a long future for them.
If there is sufficient doubt about guilt, I have no idea why Manase’s lawyer would opt for a jury trial in preference to a judge only trial and likely get a hung jury and then another trial 12 months later. But, I’m not a lawyer.
In addition, wasn’t it Haumole Olakau’atu’s brother who was heavily involved in the supposed fight? That would also explain a high level of loyalty.
If there is sufficient doubt about guilt, I have no idea why Manase’s lawyer would opt for a jury trial in preference to a judge only trial and likely get a hung jury and then another trial 12 months later. But, I’m not a lawyer.
In addition, wasn’t it Haumole Olakau’atu’s brother who was heavily involved in the supposed fight? That would also explain a high level of loyalty.
40 nil
It's only a game ...
Yes, his younger brother Jona Faingaa ('Big Buck') was charged with affray
Brother of Fainu's Manly teammate charged over church dance brawl
There has been a fresh twist in the case involving Manly Sea Eagles star Manase Fainu.
Bearfax
Grizzly old fart
Here I go. Just ignore me if I start to bore. Got two things I must say but I'll do one each per post.
The first is the issue raised about the difference between using a judge and using a jury.
Firstly its important to remember they are all people and everyone has their own perspective and leanings that influence how they think, even subliminally. And a good barrister is just as clever influencing a judge as they are a jury. That's what they're trained to do.
Certainly a judge is far more experienced in these matters than a jury member. They're experienced and read people better through experience. But they aren't infallible. The advantage of a jury is that you're getting a broad spectrum of people, and therefore a wider perspective in that they are more likely to live in the world of the offender. The judge is unlikely to.
Take the DeBellin case. A judge may have convicted him based on his experience in dealing with these matters. A jury, with a broader understanding of day to day living has a collective advantage in seeing a wider range of possibilities. The fact that two juries could not reach a decision, showed that there was insufficient evidence to satisfy at least some of the members to be convinced of his guilt. No matter what we think, in their mind they were not convinced, and in law that is consistent with what is expected. Its not an issue regarding whether he did it, Its a question as to whether the evidence is sufficiently compelling.
Either way there's risk. Juries makes mistakes. Judges make mistakes. Its human nature. Having been involved in hundreds of court matters over the years, I've seen how magistrates and judges can see things quite differently. Some judges I wouldn't risk appearing before even if I was innocent. Some are conned. Anecdotally, I recall one case of a woman appealing against severity of sentence before a district court judge. I knew the woman well. Professional shop lifter. She used tears, claimed an abusive husband (she had been single for years), and conned the judge because of his lack of information and sensitivity, to significantly reduce her sentence. I recall leaving court when her matter finished (I was not then her supervising officer) and said to her 'Well done Renata, you cleverly got out of that one'. She just turned, the tears long gone, and smiled and nodded. That happens more often than you imagine
A three judge or multiple judge sitting such as you get in the Industrial Court, may be more effective. But a single judge, despite their experience, can be manipulated based on their own foibles. Solicitors know this and try to move cases to different courts for this very reason. The High Court judge who supported the NRL No Fault policy, I suspect was so influenced, given that lower court decisions regarding such matters, had been on several occasions, determined in the other direction. Judges are human.
Unless it was a three judge hearing, even if I was innocent, I would prefer a jury.
The first is the issue raised about the difference between using a judge and using a jury.
Firstly its important to remember they are all people and everyone has their own perspective and leanings that influence how they think, even subliminally. And a good barrister is just as clever influencing a judge as they are a jury. That's what they're trained to do.
Certainly a judge is far more experienced in these matters than a jury member. They're experienced and read people better through experience. But they aren't infallible. The advantage of a jury is that you're getting a broad spectrum of people, and therefore a wider perspective in that they are more likely to live in the world of the offender. The judge is unlikely to.
Take the DeBellin case. A judge may have convicted him based on his experience in dealing with these matters. A jury, with a broader understanding of day to day living has a collective advantage in seeing a wider range of possibilities. The fact that two juries could not reach a decision, showed that there was insufficient evidence to satisfy at least some of the members to be convinced of his guilt. No matter what we think, in their mind they were not convinced, and in law that is consistent with what is expected. Its not an issue regarding whether he did it, Its a question as to whether the evidence is sufficiently compelling.
Either way there's risk. Juries makes mistakes. Judges make mistakes. Its human nature. Having been involved in hundreds of court matters over the years, I've seen how magistrates and judges can see things quite differently. Some judges I wouldn't risk appearing before even if I was innocent. Some are conned. Anecdotally, I recall one case of a woman appealing against severity of sentence before a district court judge. I knew the woman well. Professional shop lifter. She used tears, claimed an abusive husband (she had been single for years), and conned the judge because of his lack of information and sensitivity, to significantly reduce her sentence. I recall leaving court when her matter finished (I was not then her supervising officer) and said to her 'Well done Renata, you cleverly got out of that one'. She just turned, the tears long gone, and smiled and nodded. That happens more often than you imagine
A three judge or multiple judge sitting such as you get in the Industrial Court, may be more effective. But a single judge, despite their experience, can be manipulated based on their own foibles. Solicitors know this and try to move cases to different courts for this very reason. The High Court judge who supported the NRL No Fault policy, I suspect was so influenced, given that lower court decisions regarding such matters, had been on several occasions, determined in the other direction. Judges are human.
Unless it was a three judge hearing, even if I was innocent, I would prefer a jury.
Last edited:
Users who are viewing this thread
| Team | P | W | L | PD | Pts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
