News: Manly's Brett Stewart pleads not guilty to sex assault charges

[Rex]

MANLY fullback Brett Stewart will make his return to the NRL this weekend after pleading not guilty to sexual assault charges. Stewart made a brief appearance in Manly Local Court this morning to answer a charge of sexual assault against a 17-year-old girl.


<a href="http://www.silvertails.net/news/Sea-Eagles/manlys-brett-stewart-pleads-not-guilty-to-sex-assault-charges.html">Read the full article</a>

 

[niccipops]

What does this bit mean?

Magistrate Margaret Quinn ordered bail to continue, and Stewart has been excused from appearing when the matter comes before Sydney's Downing Centre on May 26.

What happens at Sydney's Downing Centre and why wouldn't Brett have to be there?

 

[Dan]

What does this bit mean?

Magistrate Margaret Quinn ordered bail to continue, and Stewart has been excused from appearing when the matter comes before Sydney's Downing Centre on May 26.

What happens at Sydney's Downing Centre and why wouldn't Brett have to be there?

The Downing centre is the District court of NSW, hearings like this would not be held at the Manly Courthouse.

Basically the next hearing will either be the hearing of the brief of evidence and we will now if it goes to trial. Brett doesn't have to be there, and can have just his solicitor turn up. He only needs to be there for plea, and sentencing I think

 

[niccipops]

Does it go to trial if both parties have enough evidence to support their cases, for example, alleged vic has evidence to back case, Stewart has evidence to support his not guilty plea, so a jury decides the outcome? And in this case for a guilty charge to stick, does there need to be no thread of doubt attached to the charges?

 

[The Gronk]

I would think unless it is super duper obvious that there is no case it will go to trial.   

 

[mwsneagle]

Just read on Sky News that he "is charged with having sexual assault without the consent of the teenager between 7.45pm and 8.05pm on March 6 at North Manly.
He is also charged with assault with an act of indecency - namely that he 'forced hi tongue into her mouth'.
Magistrate Margarate Quinn adjourned the charges to the Downing Centre Local Court on May 26 and at Mr Byrne's request, listed a related supoena matter on May 12 at the same court.
She continued Stewart's bail and excused him from appearing on the two May dates if he was legally represented.
Ms Quinn also extended by three months an apprehended violence order (AVO) issued by police in relation to the alleged victim.
The order bans Stewart from approaching or contacting the teenager."

http://www.skynews.com.au/sport/article.aspx?id=319455

What would the related subpoena matter be?
DOes the AVO restrict him returning home still?
Wasn't the familyso scared they had to move? :-X
Even the indecent assault claim seems to have no DNA to back it up as well....

 

[Dan]

Lets not speculate

 

[Kiwi Eagle]

Surely the tongue part can be thrown out with the DNA evidence

 

[Dan]

Surely the tongue part can be thrown out with the DNA evidence

if infact what has been reported about the dna is true

 

[DSM5]

Without DNA evidence it would seem to come down to a 'he said, she said' thing, unless the prosecution have other evidence, i'e. video tape, confession, admissions etc.  It's my understanding that this thing wouldn't have gone ahead were it not for the Bulldogs fiasco.  The cops just can't be seen as not proceeding as was the case with the Dogs.  Careers were ruined over that, and they weren't going to go there again.  We'll see what happens next at the Downing Centre.      

 

[missing_something]

It's my understanding that this thing wouldn't have gone ahead were it not for the Bulldogs fiasco.  

I think you'll find the police are even more careful after that fiasco and wouldn't be proceeding without a strong case, and that this has nothing to do with the bulldogs case at all.

 

[ManlyBacker]

Does it go to trial if both parties have enough evidence to support their cases, for example, alleged vic has evidence to back case, Stewart has evidence to support his not guilty plea, so a jury decides the outcome? And in this case for a guilty charge to stick, does there need to be no thread of doubt attached to the charges?

It is nothing to do with both parties. The Police and the DPP will decide if they have a case against him, and even if it is very good or very flimsy they may push for it to go to trial. If it does go to trial then a date will be set and a jury will be selected, and then the evidence will be presented to the court and the jury will decide if they believe there is guilt or not. That is my understanding.