1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Stewart case irreperably prejudiced?

Discussion in 'Rugby League Forum' started by Matabele, Sep 1, 2011.

  1. Matabele

    Matabele Well-Known Member

    +516 /14
    Some of you legal minds may correct me on this, but it seems as though the judiciary have accepted Blair's defence that Stewart instigated the fight in giving him a sentence less than the NRL pushed for?

    Surely this means that Stewart's case is prejudiced, because the presumption of innocence does not exist, established in the precedent last night?

    The judiciary are compormised: It is manifestly harder for them to consider Stewart's case that Blair was the fight instigator because they have already publicly decided otherwise.

    Personally I think it defies belief that Blair cannot be seen as the instigator:

    1. In the first brawl he is the one throwing the uppercut, which is what bought Stewart in to pull him off Lussick. (Blair instigator)
    2. As Stewart is leaving the field, facing forward, Blair alters his line and comes into contact with Stewart, pushing him across to the sideline. (Blair instigator)
    3. Blair suggests Stewart spoke first, but the vision shows Blair talking at Stewart while he is still behind him, Stewarts lips move second, if at all (unless Stewart has the gift of telepathy). (Blair instigator of verbal communication).
    4. After Blair makes contact, Stewart looks to see where the refs are (the NRL will argue this shows intent, Stewart will surely argue he was looking to see if the referees were going to do something about Blair, making it a subjective point).
    5. As Stewart is looking, Blair brings his hands up to Stewart's neck. (In the street this could be construed as assualt). Yes Stewart is very quick to start swinging, but the first point of aggression (in both brawls) is clearly Blair. Surely Stewart's defence here is one of self defence. (Blair instigator of first contact again).
    6. In the brawl I don't see Stewart makes contact with Blair, except maybe a brushing blow to his mouthpiece stored perilously behind his ear. Blair makes contact with Stewart at least once.

    On the basis of this, which I believe is comprehensively backed up by the video, on what basis can Stewart be found guilty?

    He will though, because the charge is a subjective one of "contrary conduct" and presumably it is contrary to be set upon by an opposing player twice and to defend oneself.
  2. susan

    susan Well-Known Member

    +2,357 /56
    I am a lawyer Mata and have to disagree.Stewart was always going to follow Blair at the hearing so how 24 hours matters beats me.Bellew would have argued the same case.

    Secondly the judiciary did not agree in black and white that Blair was the instigator-they merely made the correct call that 5 to 7 weeks was manifestly unfair in regard to his culpability,which Im sure they will apply to Glen as well.The reduced sentence from what the prosecutor required is not IMO a reflection of a belief about who instigated the fight based on what was reported to have been said at the hearing.They may come to that conclusion tonght but I certianly dont think last night made that a given.

    Glen has the opportunity to present his version and they will consider the veracity of his evidence just like Blairs.

    I have an opinion but like everyone else have no idea what the result will be but I dont think Glen will be disadvantaged at all by being heard second.Many things will come into play but that shouldnt be one of them.[hr]
    sorry above i meant."... Stewart was the intigator" in the second paragraph.
  3. Ceagle

    Ceagle Well-Known Member

    +252 /4
    It is clear as day that Stewart was never originally aggressive at all in the initial brawl, he was one of the good guys. It is clear that Blair showed he was aggressive as evidenced by the initial brawl, what is all this bull**** that he isnt a fighter? Look at the first fight ffs! He was looking for blood!
  4. Matabele

    Matabele Well-Known Member

    +516 /14
    Bellew added: ''The first act of aggression between him and another player was grabbing of his jumper. He retaliated by pushing the other player away. After he pushed the player away, that player started to punch him … he's not the aggressor.''

    Blair said of the 27th-minute incident, which sparked a brawl - and $50,000 fines for both clubs: ''As I was jogging off, he said something to me. I asked him what he said. I said: 'What did you say?' It went from there.''

    Bellew asked him: ''Did you say anything to him other than, 'What did you say?''' Blair said he had not.

    ''He grabbed the top of my jumper, I tried to push him off.''

    Bellew asked him: ''How did he respond to that?''

    ''He threw the first punch at me,'' Blair replied.

    The video directly contradicts this statement. The first contact was clearly from Blair veering into Stewart, and also Blair grabs Stewart's jumper, or how otherwise was Stewart free to swing at him?

    What are the judiciary? The three blind mice?
  5. Ceagle

    Ceagle Well-Known Member

    +252 /4
    What the ****? He never punched Blair![hr]

    Watch it
  6. susan

    susan Well-Known Member

    +2,357 /56
    My point is that just because the sentence was 3 weeks does not mean that the panel agree with Bellews version of Glen as the instigator.The shorter sentence simply reflects the ridiculous penalty requested by the prosecutor was not accepted by the panel.

    They may find Glen as the instigator tonight,who knows,but last nights decision in no way makes that a certianty as you suggest.He will argue his case and they may find the exact opposite.
  7. DSM5

    DSM5 Well-Known Member

    +516 /0
    I agree Susan, I thought the judiciary didn't believe Blair and so gave him a correct sentence. Not the over the top stuff that the NRL wanted. This would indicate that Glenn may get two weeks for his involvement in the second incident. He should not, imo, plead guilty.
  8. Masked Eagle

    Masked Eagle Well-Known Member

    +976 /0
    My only concern with having the judiciary hearing tonight as opposed to last night is the make up of the panel. We all know the NRL has a rotating group of former players who sit on the panel, so my concern is if its a different 3 players do they see things differently? My understanding is there is no such thing as precedence in these hearings so they are in no way obliged to weight Glenns punishment up against Blairs.
  9. susan

    susan Well-Known Member

    +2,357 /56
    I would imagine it will definitely be the same three unless they cant attend.The fact that they have spent many hours considering the evidence already would demand that they sit on tonights panel in the interests of fairness.
  10. Pride

    Pride Active Member

    +60 /0
    I still cannot understand how Hinchcliff has got off a striking charge even though he was penalized for the elbow??
  11. Dan

    Dan Kim Jong Dan Staff Member Administrator 2016 Tipping Competitor 2017 Tipping Competitor

    +7,729 /120
    Because they see the penalty as sufficient
  12. Rex

    Rex Well-Known Member

    +2,376 /60
    The prosecution's requested 5-7 weeks was seen as manifestly ludicrous.

    If the judiciary combine common sense and experience of these situations, which I assume they do, the three weeks indicates that they do not accept Blair's evidence. In the first incident, he was third-man-in, threw a huge uppercut on a player pinned helpless to defend himself, and connected. Two weeks. Compare that to the second incident for seriousness where he was not third-man-in, did not strike at a player unable to defend himself, and did not connect. Three weeks. Subsequent actions by other players are irrelevant.

    The difference to make it three weeks (instead of less than the two weeks) is that Blair was the aggressor who started another fight, after being sinbinned for his central culpability in the earlier fight.
  13. bones

    bones Bones Knows

    +9,037 /102
    Ray Hadley just said that the judiciary last night had accepted that Blair was not the aggressor. If that's the case Glenn is gone for the year.
  14. Rodo

    Rodo Goldmember 2017 Tipping Competitor

    +692 /20
    That's only his opinion. He could be wrong. And in any case Sullivan QC could convince them otherwise. In a real court of law they need to hear both sides of the story before making their decision.
  15. Stevo

    Stevo Well-Known Member

    +1,401 /56
    Can i ask a question? If Blair pleaded guilty why was their case argued? Seeing he admitted guilt was it purely to seek a lower penalty?

    Theoretically, If Glenn pleads not guilty, his penalty should be none or the same shouldn't it?
  16. Chip and Chase

    Chip and Chase True Supporter Staff Member Administrator Premium Member 2017 Tipping Competitor

    +8,573 /80
    He pleaded guilty to the striking charge I know that. Did he plead guilty to the contrary conduct charge as well ? If he did, I can only assume that there is a standard discount available on all charges for early guilty pleas, and he wanted to avail himself of that discount regardless of the sentence imposed.
  17. WAMF

    WAMF Well-Known Member

    +408 /0
    My odds

    No suspension $6
    1 week $4
    2 weeks $2.50
    3 weeks $1.01
    4 weeks $5
    > than 4 wks $6.50
  18. MK Eagle

    MK Eagle Well-Known Member

    +247 /0
    I dont like taking the short odds WAMF but you leave me no choice!!
  19. mickqld

    mickqld Sack Greenslime 2017 Tipping Competitor

    +5,249 /109
    The main problem for Glenn is when Foz, Robbo and Snake got Blair down on the ground in the second melee Glenn came in throwing punches at Blair while he was held down by 3 Manly players. BUT going on Blairs suspension he should get no more than 3 weeks as Blair did the same to Lussick and Blair was the instigator in both melees.[hr]
    Ray Hadley has joined the ever growing list of media cockheads with his hypocritical ranting over all this.
  20. Cameron

    Cameron Cambo

    +669 /35
    i think 2 weeks would be a fair result but when has the NRL ever been fair lol

Share This Page