NEWS Landmark ruling: Jack de Belin barred from NRL return

Jason Simmons

NRL Player
2,560
2,301
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
Dunno what law school you went to man, but perjury is the offence of lying under oath, ie: you have to be in court, sworn in, giving evidence under oath...

There are various offences for making false complaints and false statements but they aren’t perjury.
 

Jason Simmons

NRL Player
2,560
2,301
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
In Queensland at least, you cannot be sued for making a complaint to police. There is a legislative exemption for this to not discourage people from reporting offending. I’d be astonished if NsW didn’t have something similar.

Furthermore for Jack’s matter to get to trial for him to be found not guilty, it will first have to be committed for trial. If that happens, a Magistrate will find there is prima facie evidence for the matter to proceed to trial, ie: there is some evidence of sufficient nature that ‘could’ convict the defendant of the offence, charged.

Now that is not to say that a properly constituted court ‘would’ convict, only that it would be possible on the evidence. I cannot imagine a jurisdiction where a Magistrate has found there is sufficient evidence and committed a matter for trial, allowing a victim to be sued for a false complaint...
 

Jason Simmons

NRL Player
2,560
2,301
New info ? Or, new memories of the evening? It's hard to see how something 'new' came along so much later. Perhaps Bellends alleged partner in crime decided to hang his mate out to dry.
It’s possible. De Belin has been charged with additional offences, but his alleged co-offender has not. That may indicate the co-offender is co-operating with authorities, it may not.

Could also be the results of forensic / medical testing / forensic computer / phone examinations have finally come back, additional witness based evidence has become available that wasn’t present before, ‘other’ investigative strategies may have gleaned further evidence, or Prosecutors may have recommended additional charges be laid based on the evidence that already exists.

Interesting developments nonetheless.
 

Porthoz

International Captain
Staff
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.
A professional sportsman can only maintain or increase his value by playing, while not doing so definitely decreases his market value. There is a difference between the right to play and being prohibited from playing. His club already made clear they would play him if they were allowed to. Preventing that does in my opinion amount to restriction of trade.

The "no fault policy" clause is absolute bullshit. It amounts to a guilty verdict by media trial, while in my opinion no business interests should ever trump a person's presumed innocence.
If a person hasn't been denied bail, isn't in a position that could allow them to interfere with their case (police, lawyer, pollie, etc...) or put other people in danger (doctor accused of malpractice, airline pilot accused of a serious breach, etc...), they shouldn't suffer the consequences of an accusation until proven guilty.

Whether his and his lawyer's approach was the best strategy is of course up in the air, but the line about not making waves bringing a very high profile court case, is typical of making it very hard for people to argue against minor offenses and/or administrative measures in Australia without recurring to a court.
Unless you want to hire a lawyer and take time off work to fight for your rights, you should be docile, bend over and take it like a bitch.

FTR, I feel dirty about discussing this, because if all the allegations are true, I hope they lock him up, throw away the key and keep his arse nice and smoothly shaved for his prison mates...

P.S. A bit unrelated to the matter at hand, but I wish every single traffic fine was fought in court, until they were clogged up for years and years in arrears, so they would be forced to provide a proper recourse for people to appeal to...
 

broncos4life

International Rep
17,338
11,409
Brisbane
A professional sportsman can only maintain or increase his value by playing, while not doing so definitely decreases his market value. There is a difference between the right to play and being prohibited from playing. His club already made clear they would play him if they were allowed to. Preventing that does in my opinion amount to restriction of trade.

The "no fault policy" clause is absolute bullshit. It amounts to a guilty verdict by media trial, while in my opinion no business interests should ever trump a person's presumed innocence.
If a person hasn't been denied bail, isn't in a position that could allow them to interfere with their case (police, lawyer, pollie, etc...) or put other people in danger (doctor accused of malpractice, airline pilot accused of a serious breach, etc...), they shouldn't suffer the consequences of an accusation until proven guilty.

Whether his and his lawyer's approach was the best strategy is of course up in the air, but the line about not making waves bringing a very high profile court case, is typical of making it very hard for people to argue against minor offenses and/or administrative measures in Australia without recurring to a court.
Unless you want to hire a lawyer and take time off work to fight for your rights, you should be docile, bend over and take it like a bitch.

FTR, I feel dirty about discussing this, because if all the allegations are true, I hope they lock him up, throw away the key and keep his arse nice and smoothly shaved for his prison mates...

P.S. A bit unrelated to the matter at hand, but I wish every single traffic fine was fought in court, until they were clogged up for years and years in arrears, so they would be forced to provide a proper recourse for people to appeal to...
Nothing to worry about there, he looks like the kind of douche that would shave his own arse.
 

Nashy

International Captain
Staff
39,613
14,539
Brisbane
A professional sportsman can only maintain or increase his value by playing, while not doing so definitely decreases his market value. There is a difference between the right to play and being prohibited from playing. His club already made clear they would play him if they were allowed to. Preventing that does in my opinion amount to restriction of trade.

The "no fault policy" clause is absolute bullshit. It amounts to a guilty verdict by media trial, while in my opinion no business interests should ever trump a person's presumed innocence.
If a person hasn't been denied bail, isn't in a position that could allow them to interfere with their case (police, lawyer, pollie, etc...) or put other people in danger (doctor accused of malpractice, airline pilot accused of a serious breach, etc...), they shouldn't suffer the consequences of an accusation until proven guilty.

Whether his and his lawyer's approach was the best strategy is of course up in the air, but the line about not making waves bringing a very high profile court case, is typical of making it very hard for people to argue against minor offenses and/or administrative measures in Australia without recurring to a court.
Unless you want to hire a lawyer and take time off work to fight for your rights, you should be docile, bend over and take it like a bitch.

FTR, I feel dirty about discussing this, because if all the allegations are true, I hope they lock him up, throw away the key and keep his arse nice and smoothly shaved for his prison mates...

P.S. A bit unrelated to the matter at hand, but I wish every single traffic fine was fought in court, until they were clogged up for years and years in arrears, so they would be forced to provide a proper recourse for people to appeal to...
Traffic cops are scum. It's never going to happen while they need their little egos inflated.

In regards to JDB, it's not bullshit. It's absolutely and utterly no different to a CEO standing down while a court case is heard, where very, very serious criminal charges are laid against them. It's absolutely no different. He is still employed. He is still training. He is still being paid.

It really is that simple. It's about time these fucking cockheads realise, you bring the game into disrepute, you're fucking sitting down.


Edit: CEO doesn't work well for your argument. Lets use a printer salesman. He needs to be getting sales to increase his numbers to get promoted. You'd be hard stretched to get any company with half a brain, to send out a sale rep who's covered in the news as being charged, multiple times, with gang rape.

It's completely fair. The company shouldn't have their name dragged through the mud because of an employee.
 
Last edited:

Porthoz

International Captain
Staff
Traffic cops are scum. It's never going to happen while they need their little egos inflated.

In regards to JDB, it's not bullshit. It's absolutely and utterly no different to a CEO standing down while a court case is heard, where very, very serious criminal charges are laid against them. It's absolutely no different. He is still employed. He is still training. He is still being paid.

It really is that simple. It's about time these fucking cockheads realise, you bring the game into disrepute, you're fucking sitting down.


Edit: CEO doesn't work well for your argument. Lets use a printer salesman. He needs to be getting sales to increase his numbers to get promoted. You'd be hard stretched to get any company with half a brain, to send out a sale rep who's covered in the news as being charged, multiple times, with gang rape.

It's completely fair. The company shouldn't have their name dragged through the mud because of an employee.
If the employee is found innocent, whose fault is it that the company's name was dragged through the mud?
 

Nashy

International Captain
Staff
39,613
14,539
Brisbane
If the employee is found innocent, whose fault is it that the company's name was dragged through the mud?
The employee would need to look at his legal options against those who dragged his name through the mud. IE: Not the NRL. It's a pointless question though, because my example happens in the real world, only now do people start to take notice, because for some reason, we care more about dumb football players than we do regular people. Any other aspect of life, you're sitting down, or on a desk. If it's good enough for corporate, it's good enough for the NRL.
 

Porthoz

International Captain
Staff
The employee would need to look at his legal options against those who dragged his name through the mud. IE: Not the NRL. It's a pointless question though, because my example happens in the real world, only now do people start to take notice, because for some reason, we care more about dumb football players than we do regular people. Any other aspect of life, you're sitting down, or on a desk. If it's good enough for corporate, it's good enough for the NRL.
Oh don't get me wrong, I am not arguing for that dumb ****. My argument is for anyone who suffers that fate while not proven guilty. Bellend's example is just a very public one of something I am absolutely against.

My question was about whose fault it would be that the company (not the employee)'s name was dragged through the mud.
 
Last edited:

Nashy

International Captain
Staff
39,613
14,539
Brisbane
Oh don't get me wrong, I am not arguing for that dumb ****. My argument is for anyone who suffers that fate while not proven guilty. Bellend's example is just a very public one of something I am absolutely against.
Lets assume you own the company you currently work for. You're the boss, your companies image is on the line. I would be very, very surprised, if someone as business savvy as you, would send an accused gang rapist to another big company to try and sell them one of your fancy machines.

It just wouldn't happen, even with your stance in here. You don't risk your business like that.
 

Porthoz

International Captain
Staff
Lets assume you own the company you currently work for. You're the boss, your companies image is on the line. I would be very, very surprised, if someone as business savvy as you, would send an accused gang rapist to another big company to try and sell them one of your fancy machines.

It just wouldn't happen, even with your stance in here. You don't risk your business like that.
Fair question, and one I honestly don't know the answer to... it probably depends on how much damage the company would incur and how much the rest of the employees would suffer from it.

It still doesn't answer the question in regards to whose fault it would be if the company's name was dragged through the mud if the employee was found not guilty.
 

Nashy

International Captain
Staff
39,613
14,539
Brisbane
Fair question, and one I honestly don't know the answer to... it probably depends on how much damage the company would incur and how much the rest of the employees would suffer from it.

It still doesn't answer the question in regards to whose fault it would be if the company's name was dragged through the mud if the employee was found not guilty.
Oh read it wrong. No idea. Not really a concern of mine. Anyway. At what point did it become the employee's decision of what job he would be doing at the company?

James Roberts can't sue the Broncos?
 

Porthoz

International Captain
Staff
Oh read it wrong. No idea. Not really a concern of mine. Anyway. At what point did it become the employee's decision of what job he would be doing at the company?

James Roberts can't sue the Broncos?
So you're concerned about the company's name going through the mud because of an accusation against an employee, but no longer concerned about the same thing when said employee is cleared? I'm not sure I understand.

James Roberts was stood down by the Broncos for allegedly falling out with his superior, while failing to put in the required effort at training and and even during games.
Allowing him to stay in FG under those circumstances because he can on a rare occasion pull a rabbit out of his hat, while demoting others for the same flaws may also have been deemed a bad thing for the players' group morale.
I don't think it even comes near the same category... nice straw-man though.
 

Nashy

International Captain
Staff
39,613
14,539
Brisbane
So you're concerned about the company's name going through the mud because of an accusation against an employee, but no longer concerned about the same thing when said employee is cleared? I'm not sure I understand.

James Roberts was stood down by the Broncos for allegedly falling out with his superior, while failing to put in the required effort at training and and even during games.
Allowing him to stay in FG under those circumstances because he can on a rare occasion pull a rabbit out of his hat, while demoting others for the same flaws may also have been deemed a bad thing for the players' group morale.
I don't think it even comes near the same category... nice straw-man though.
The company is in a position, and acted to remove that problem from their company. I'm actually not sure what your question is. Are you asking me if the police should be held accountable if the company name is dragged through the mud after they keep the employee in a customer facing role? Because that would be on them, hence it's their prerogative to take that person from the front, and sit him down the back until it blows over.

I'm certain most people don't know what straw man even means here. Certainly just the latest of BHQ buzzword wank.

James roberts was told he couldn't play first grade anymore. He's a professional footballer, he needs to play football to earn good contracts. It's no different with that argument. Players don't determine the position they play at the club. Just like JDB doesn't choose his position in the club.

If it's down to the arguments used, ie. One failing to put in, one might be a dirty rapist, the court didn't care, so I struggle to see why we should care about that?
 

Jason Simmons

NRL Player
2,560
2,301
A professional sportsman can only maintain or increase his value by playing, while not doing so definitely decreases his market value. There is a difference between the right to play and being prohibited from playing. His club already made clear they would play him if they were allowed to. Preventing that does in my opinion amount to restriction of trade.
I disagree. Matty Johns for example has increased his value far more in retirement than anything he did by playing.

Again however the options to increase his value are entirely speculative. JDB ‘might’ make more money through greater availability of market opportunities by playing, but it is impossible to prove. The fact that his own lawyer couldn’t point out one single missed financial opportunity is proof of that. I can’t charge based on speculation, you can’t sue based on speculation, but you think JDB should be allowed to? Sorry my friend, the courts rightly in my opinion strike out such fanciful arguments.

The "no fault policy" clause is absolute bullshit. It amounts to a guilty verdict by media trial, while in my opinion no business interests should ever trump a person's presumed innocence.
No it doesn’t. To me this is an even weaker argument than the idea that speculation should be allowed in court, for starters JDB has the choice of a judge only trial or a trial by Jury. That is his choice. A properly instructed Jury in my opinion having personally sat through literally DAYS of Juries being instructed will also not convict on the basis of media coverage, but in any case if he feels differently then he can have a Judge only trial and avoid that issue all together.

Secondly, this so-called “media trial” has largely occurred because of the case he brought against the NRL. The NRL didn’t bring this case, he did. What sort of legal system would we have, if businesses can be targetted through lawsuits in relation to solely speculative positions, all the while the very same person (defendants this time, not the plaintiff) charged with extremely serious criminal charges are free to turn around and complain about all the media coverage impacting their right to a fair trial? The legal system would be an absolute mockery.

What would happen under such a situation? Criminal charges being dismissed because he got a lot of media attention for a lawsuit he brought on and businesses’ rights to defend themselves at law, being completely trumped by his rights to defend himself at law? Sweet. All the NRL would need to do would be to suit him and then the rights would switch around again by that logic, and around and around it would go...

If a person hasn't been denied bail, isn't in a position that could allow them to interfere with their case (police, lawyer, pollie, etc...) or put other people in danger (doctor accused of malpractice, airline pilot accused of a serious breach, etc...), they shouldn't suffer the consequences of an accusation until proven guilty.
He hasn’t yet suffered any consequences of an accusation of criminality. What even his own lawyer couldn’t successfully argue is that he may one day suffer consequences because his employer decided that their business interests were affected by his alleged actions and took steps to protect themselves from harm.

All the courts have ruled so far effectively boils down to the point that his right to legally defend himself, does not trump the NRL’s right to legally defend themselves. The courts have shown unequivocally that they are never going to rule in a plaintiff’s favour in such a situation and the fact that the court ordered him to pay the NRL’s rather enormous legal bills, is as big a slap down as they can do to this type of situation. The fact that JDB not only lost but his entire line of argument was slapped down publicly by the Federal Court AND he was ordered to pay the NRL’s costs in full, shows the legal position as clearly as it gets.

Whether his and his lawyer's approach was the best strategy is of course up in the air, but the line about not making waves bringing a very high profile court case, is typical of making it very hard for people to argue against minor offenses and/or administrative measures in Australia without recurring to a court.
Again I don’t agree about JDB’s ‘strategy’ for the reasons outlined above, but additionally challenging the State is the very reason WHY we have courts in the first place and why they range from the likes of QCAT which is purposefully designed to allow the ‘little fish’ to take on the big players, all the way to the Supreme Court which can deal with virtually any legal situation that can be contemplated. Any administrative action or prosecution can be challenged in this Country. But society dictates that this should never be easy in the same way that it dictates that such action should never be taken lightly.

Unless you want to hire a lawyer and take time off work to fight for your rights, you should be docile, bend over and take it like a bitch.
Or obey the law... Not to make myself seem holier than thou too greatly, but I’ve had 5 traffic infringements in my life and had go through the Federal Court for a Property Settlement with the first Wicked Witch... Apart from my professional role, those are the only legal dealings I’ve ever had in my 43 years on this planet... It is my experience that obeying the law means you rarely ever have to fight against ‘anything’ in this lucky country of ours.

FTR, I feel dirty about discussing this, because if all the allegations are true, I hope they lock him up, throw away the key and keep his arse nice and smoothly shaved for his prison mates...
If true, I hope and expect he will enjoy a significant stretch at Her Majesty’s Pleasure, based on the allegations I have heard.

P.S. A bit unrelated to the matter at hand, but I wish every single traffic fine was fought in court, until they were clogged up for years and years in arrears, so they would be forced to provide a proper recourse for people to appeal to...
People could, but you have to remember the fines you get on a ticket are the regulated amount for the infringement notice, not the full range of penalties available to a court for dealing with these offences. Hence why you see those ‘you may be fined up to $16,518 or 12 months in jail’ type posters in pubs. Those penalties are the maximum you could receive for these offences, not the infringement amounts, which are set by regulation if the ticket is paid.

Some sort of ‘anti-justice’ movement to clog up the courts would probably see the courts respond in kind...
 

Jason Simmons

NRL Player
2,560
2,301
Fair question, and one I honestly don't know the answer to... it probably depends on how much damage the company would incur and how much the rest of the employees would suffer from it.

It still doesn't answer the question in regards to whose fault it would be if the company's name was dragged through the mud if the employee was found not guilty.
Who is doing the dragging? Not the NRL. If JDB think he has been unfairly treated by the media outlets doing said dragging, he has legal options against them.

But then again, when you are appearing in press conferences you have called with your lawyer and discussing your legal case (or cases), it’s likely to prove to be a rather difficult argument to put to a court that subsequent media coverage is negatively impacting your image / rights...

Certainly the courts so far have struck out this line of argument. Hopefully the Criminal Courts follow the same tack.

Would a great smackdown for show-boating lawyers if nothing else and would be a worthy thing for this alone...
 
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