NEWS Landmark ruling: Jack de Belin barred from NRL return

roo-ted

NRL Player
Yes, don't be accused of fucking up to the extent that both the police and the prosecutors deem there is enough evidence to spend resources of a cluttered court system in an attempt to bring you to justice.
All they need is a statement. Once they have that, they leave it up to the court to decide. Because of the seriousness of the charge there is no way they wouldn’t charge him and there is no way they would drop the charge. Just because someone gets charged doesn’t alway mean there is a lot of evidence, sometime the police charge the person to cover their own ass. If they had a heap of souls evidence there is no way he would of got bail, he would be in jail now waiting for his court date.
 

Tom

State of Origin Rep
6,603
5,683
It's not outside the realm of possibility that she's making it up. SKD was eventually found not guilty on all counts and Jessica Peris was found to be making it up. The allegations against De Belin are particularly disgusting though, and he should probably sit out. Have said before I'm glad I'm not the judge deciding whether he can play in the meantime or not- it's probably not a bad question to put to philosophers for them to ponder, even they would struggle I would think. Probably better for all parties if it could be resolved quicker but hey, what can you do. If she is found to be a liar then she should be the one who pays costs, and remunerates JDB.

A not guilty finding does not necessarily means she was lying though, to be clear.
 
Last edited:

roo-ted

NRL Player
Or putting yourself in a situation where you are blind drunk with another blind drunk person, with plans to go and cheat on your wife and the mother of your child. He's scum even if there wasn't a rape.
Scum bag yes. Is cheating on your wife a sackable reason no. If that was the case there wouldn’t be many players left in the NRL. I guess all will be reviled at the trial. If he is found not guilty the accuser is in a world of trouble. Jacks lawyers will have a field day
 

Foordy

International Rep
Staff
17,516
8,598
Scum bag yes. Is cheating on your wife a sackable reason no. If that was the case there wouldn’t be many players left in the NRL. I guess all will be reviled at the trial. If he is found not guilty the accuser is in a world of trouble. Jacks lawyers will have a field day
being found not guilty is not the same as being found "innocent" ... there is a reason it is a "not guilty" verdict instead of an "innocent" verdict.

and Jacks lawyers will only have a field day if they can "prove" that she is lying. good luck on that.

sexual assault is a notoriously difficult charge to convict on. if courts allow victims to be sued for reporting this crime to police then there will be many more alleged rapists going free
 

roo-ted

NRL Player
being found not guilty is not the same as being found "innocent" ... there is a reason it is a "not guilty" verdict instead of an "innocent" verdict.

and Jacks lawyers will only have a field day if they can "prove" that she is lying. good luck on that.

sexual assault is a notoriously difficult charge to convict on. if courts allow victims to be sued for reporting this crime to police then there will be many more alleged rapists going free
If her statement are found to be misleading or untrue, she can be charged with perjury. I’m guessing he has some high class lawyers on his case in which case if she is full of shit they shouldn’t have to much trouble in bringing that to light. The court also don’t want people making dodgy statements which accuse people of significant crimes. Judges especially come down hard on people that are financially motivated
 
Last edited:

Foordy

International Rep
Staff
17,516
8,598
If her statement are found to be misleading or untrue, she can be charged with perjury. I’m guessing he has some high class lawyers on his case in which case if she is full of shit they shouldn’t have to much trouble in bringing that to light. The court also don’t want people making dodgy statements which accuse people of significant crimes. Judges especially come down hard on people that are financially motivated
your assuming she is lying just because he says he is innocent. IMO, this sort of mentality is why more victims don't come forward to report sexually assault

police don't charge just on a victims say so (especially against high profile suspects), you just need to look at the Bulldogs Coffs Harbour scandal to see that, there would likely be more evidence. whether that evidence is enough to convince a jury is another story (but it would have been enough to convince both the police and DPP)

before they even contemplate charging an alleged sexual assault victim with perjury they will want to have compelling evidence that she is guilty.

JDB and his legal team also need to remember, that should he attempt to sue the alleged victim, she will be screaming "he is a rapist" all over again ... she may even decide to take legal action of her own, and she would have a better chance of winning a civil trial due to the lower burden of proof.

if he is guilty (and i'm not saying he is), then he would want to think long and hard before attempting a law suit against the victim.
 

roo-ted

NRL Player
your assuming she is lying just because he says he is innocent. IMO, this sort of mentality is why more victims don't come forward to report sexually assault

police don't charge just on a victims say so (especially against high profile suspects), you just need to look at the Bulldogs Coffs Harbour scandal to see that, there would likely be more evidence. whether that evidence is enough to convince a jury is another story (but it would have been enough to convince both the police and DPP)

before they even contemplate charging an alleged sexual assault victim with perjury they will want to have compelling evidence that she is guilty.

JDB and his legal team also need to remember, that should he attempt to sue the alleged victim, she will be screaming "he is a rapist" all over again ... she may even decide to take legal action of her own, and she would have a better chance of winning a civil trial due to the lower burden of proof.

if he is guilty (and i'm not saying he is), then he would want to think long and hard before attempting a law suit against the victim.
No I’m not assuming anything, I’m simply playing out different outcomes. It would be interesting to see your opinion would change if you were accused of something. Innocent until proven guilty is the same law that protects everyone from mob like mentality.
The police and the department of public prosecutions usually always start with the most significant charge that they can so there is room for bargain deals if it all falls apart. The prosecutor isn’t overly concerned about convincing someone with the charge they first got put on them, all they care about is a conviction. A conviction goes on their portfolios for further jobs 250 charges 220 convictions ect. This is where the lines get blurred because they don’t care if you are innocent or not they just need that conviction and will offer you a lesser charge to get it
 

broncos4life

International Rep
16,896
10,572
Brisbane
All they need is a statement. Once they have that, they leave it up to the court to decide. Because of the seriousness of the charge there is no way they wouldn’t charge him and there is no way they would drop the charge. Just because someone gets charged doesn’t alway mean there is a lot of evidence, sometime the police charge the person to cover their own ass. If they had a heap of souls evidence there is no way he would of got bail, he would be in jail now waiting for his court date.
This is just not true.
 

Tom

State of Origin Rep
6,603
5,683
Or putting yourself in a situation where you are blind drunk with another blind drunk person, with plans to go and cheat on your wife and the mother of your child. He's scum even if there wasn't a rape.
Makes Darius Boyd scum too I guess.
 
Last edited:

broncos4life

International Rep
16,896
10,572
Brisbane
Great argument.
Do you really think a judge is going to look at the evidence and see that someone is clearly a rapist then grant them bail?
It is not uncommon at all for someone accused of rape to be granted bail, especially someone high profile. Bail will only be denied when there is a clear and present to the community and given De Belin’s status and the high profile of the case he is hardly going to be prowling the streets.

Also, your claim that a statement is all that is required for a charge is false. There needs to be evidence to back the statement up. You act like anyone could walk into a police statement and claim rape with no other evidence than that statement and the person would be charged and trialled.
 

roo-ted

NRL Player
It is not uncommon at all for someone accused of rape to be granted bail, especially someone high profile. Bail will only be denied when there is a clear and present to the community and given De Belin’s status and the high profile of the case he is hardly going to be prowling the streets.

Also, your claim that a statement is all that is required for a charge is false. There needs to be evidence to back the statement up. You act like anyone could walk into a police statement and claim rape with no other evidence than that statement and the person would be charged and trialled.
You’d be surprised on what little evidence is needed to charge someone especially if there is one of her friends back up her story. Another thing that makes charging someone easier is if you refuse to do a formal interview.
Either way if he’s done it, I hope he gets time, if not and has been falsely accused I hope she is punished.
 

broncos4life

International Rep
16,896
10,572
Brisbane
You’d be surprised on what little evidence is needed to charge someone especially if there is one of her friends back up her story. Another thing that makes charging someone easier is if you refuse to do a formal interview.
Either way if he’s done it, I hope he gets time, if not and has been falsely accused I hope she is punished.
That is not the case but there is little put discussing this any further with you, you believe what you want to believe.
 

I bleed Maroon

State of Origin Rep
7,463
4,964
The players’ union has launched an attempt to have the NRL’s controversial “no fault” stand down rule struck out under the collective bargaining agreement.
The Rugby League Players’ Association (RLPA) on Friday confirmed they had issued the NRL a dispute over the rule which allows the governing body to stand down any player accused of a serious crime.

Live stream the 2019 NRL Telstra Premiership on KAYO SPORTS. Every game of every round live & anytime on your TV or favourite device. Get your 14 day free trial >

Jack de Belin and Tyrone May were the first players stood down under the rules after it was introduced in March.

Round 11
RLPA Chief Executive Officer, Ian Prendergast, issued a statement on Friday to explain the reasoning behind issuing a dispute under the CBA.

Jack De Belin was one of the player’s first stood down by the rule
Jack De Belin was one of the player’s first stood down by the ruleSource: Getty Images
MORE NRL NEWS

‘AWARE OF HIS ISSUES’: NRL boss pledges support to ‘struggling’ Inglis

SEX SCANDAL: Cleary reveals ‘enormous’ toll of Panthers sex tapes



‘DARK DAYS’: Dylan Walker breaks silence on court case

PARKER’S MAROONS: Monster bench in Corey Parker’s QLD side


“To be clear, our challenge under the CBA is about protecting the collective interests of our members,” Prendergast said.

“We are acting to protect the rights of our members, the importance of the Collective Bargaining Agreement and our role as the representatives of players.

“If we allow changes like this policy to be made without our agreement, it completely undermines the ability for the RLPA to properly represent its members and the validity of the CBA.

“We recognise that there was a need for the NRL to address the series of incidents that occurred during the off season and the pressure it placed the game under – particularly from commercial partners and other important stakeholders.



RLPA marching off to war over the stand down policy, big shock.
 

Morkel

International Captain
Staff
20,574
16,816
The same RLPA that argued that the players are partners in the game and deserve to be rewarded accordingly?
 

Jason Simmons

NRL Player
2,475
2,146
That's definitely controversial... and I find it hard to swallow, because it goes against the fundamental "innocent until proven guilty" principle enshrined in the Australian common law, turning it into a "guilty until proven innocent" punishment.
It's also ridiculous to rule it doesn't impact his standing in the game, due to the publicity of it.
It's also very dubious whether this is or isn't restriction of trade...

I assume this could be escalated to the High Court of Australia. I know I definitely would.

Regardless whether it's the case with Bellend or not, someone innocent will end caught up in this, not to speak of the potential for abuse this brings about.
Three points. One, it is not a restriction of trade, he is being paid to do his job, ie: be an NRL footballer. He has no contractual right to play, however.

Secondly, no-one is saying he is innocent or guilty, but the court IS saying the NRL is entitled to protect it’s legitimate interests. If he is so terribly worried about media exposure affecting his criminal trial, one might think he wouldn’t have done media appearances with his lawyer outside court, or bring a very high profile court case that was unlikely to be successful at all, but never-mind... If he really is worried that it’s all the NRL’s fault, he can always ask for a Judge only trial to avoid that media exposure issue...

Thirdly, he is basing his request on a speculative ‘this might happen at some future date if this course is allowed to continue’ basis, which has always (in Australia anyway) been rightly considered a p*ss-poor legal argument. There is no legitimate evidence you can bring to prove to a court you ‘may’ lose in the future... Go and ask Rebel Wilson about it... She won on speculative grounds, then lost on appeal and then the High Court threw her appeal out...

IMHO, they would do the same with De Bellend too.
- Merged

You want to bet on that?
We do, but only when forced to. Plenty of people have been convicted on the uncorroborated testimony of one person, but judges have to warn juries about the dangers of such and it requires an excellent witness.

In any case, it’s rare in my experience that there is ‘no’ other evidence to corroborate a victim. Even the crime novel favourite of an assault in a dark alley with no witnesses can often be corroborated through a variety of means.
 
Last edited:

Jason Simmons

NRL Player
2,475
2,146
You’d be surprised on what little evidence is needed to charge someone especially if there is one of her friends back up her story.
Do tell. How easy is it?


Another thing that makes charging someone easier is if you refuse to do a formal interview.
Not in Australia it doesn’t. It should, but it doesn’t.

Either way if he’s done it, I hope he gets time, if not and has been falsely accused I hope she is punished.
Agreed. If the allegations I have heard are true, he is in a lot of strife...
- Merged

Great argument.
Do you really think a judge is going to look at the evidence and see that someone is clearly a rapist then grant them bail?
There is a presumption of bail for everyone at law, except for very specific offences (Murder and Terrorism related offences is about it).

The only time bail would be a particular issue with rape, would be if the alleged offender is already on bail for something else, or there were particular grounds for police to object to bail. Even then in De Bellin’s case, he would likely be granted it.
 
Last edited:

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create free account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Login or Register

Forgot your password?
Don't have an account? Register now

Twitter

Top