RUMOUR Pending Broncos Investigation

[Kaz]

Of course they will know the evidence. Their lawyers will have a brief so they know what's going on.

They wouldn't.

They know the charges, but they wouldn't know the evidence.

 

[Kaz]

Feel free to open a thread in the Staff Chat area. It'll only be visible to staff & yourself.

This is the only time, that I want to be a staff member. :laugh:

 

[Morkel]

This is the only time, that I want to be a staff member. :laugh:

Oh trust me, it's like the Teacher's Lounge, full of confiscated booze and pictures on the walls of all the stupid things that members have said. And dirt. So much dirt. Literally. There's this thing that Porthoz does with dirt, olive oil, and when he puts one leg on the top of the bar stool... never mind.

 

[Nashy]

They wouldn't.

They know the charges, but they wouldn't know the evidence.

That's a load of crap, Kaz.

The first thing their lawyers would have requested was a brief of evidence. I've been charged with an offence before, it's the first thing that my lawyer got hold off after they let me go.

 

[Jason Simmons]

That's a load of crap, Kaz.

The first thing their lawyers would have requested was a brief of evidence. I've been charged with an offence before, it's the first thing that my lawyer got hold off after they let me go.

Police (and the QCCC staff preferring these charges ARE police) are required to complete a QP9 court brief for a defendant's initial appearance at Court. That is not a ' brief of evidence'. It is a summary of the facts and the charges a person is charged with. It doesn't contain evidence such as witness statements, analyst certificates, photographs and so on. It is a basic description of the matter and related issues at hand.

These defendant's lawyers in this case have reportedly not yet received the QP9 court brief (which lists the charges and a summary of the facts the Crown is alleging). However they will closer to, or perhaps even on the day of court.

The Crown is not required to produce a FULL brief of evidence at the initial mention and in many cases NEVER even prepares a full brief (as the overwhelming majority of defendant's plead guilty, meaning no full brief is required). A full brief is only required once a charge/s is listed for hearing (either Summary or Committal).

What your lawyer asked for was the QP9. Not the brief of evidence.

 

[Cult]

Can we rename this thread 'Baseless accusations from shitty media who know nothing' or something like that?

 

[Nashy]

Police (and the QCCC staff preferring these charges ARE police) are required to complete a QP9 court brief for a defendant's initial appearance at Court. That is not a ' brief of evidence'. It is a summary of the facts and the charges a person is charged with. It doesn't contain evidence such as witness statements, analyst certificates, photographs and so on. It is a basic description of the matter and related issues at hand.

These defendant's lawyers in this case have reportedly not yet received the QP9 court brief (which lists the charges and a summary of the facts the Crown is alleging). However they will closer to, or perhaps even on the day of court.

The Crown is not required to produce a FULL brief of evidence at the initial mention and in many cases NEVER even prepares a full brief (as the overwhelming majority of defendant's plead guilty, meaning no full brief is required). A full brief is only required once a charge/s is listed for hearing (either Summary or Committal).

What your lawyer asked for was the QP9. Not the brief of evidence.

They're not going to have every single detail. But to suggest they don't have information pertaining to how the police have charged them is ludicrous.

The QP9 states the charges, and the time frames that relate to the charges, and how they've determined that a charge can be laid.

EG. Porthoz had illegal prescriptions of Viarga at this location, at this time, and we know that because informant X told us. We also have this, this and this.

Then all the fun details come out after first appearance.

To suggest these players have no idea is just idiotic.

 

[Art Vandelay]

They're not going to have every single detail. But to suggest they don't have information pertaining to how the police have charged them is ludicrous.

The QP9 states the charges, and the time frames that relate to the charges, and how they've determined that a charge can be laid.

EG. Porthoz had illegal prescriptions of Viarga at this location, at this time, and we know that because informant X told us. We also have this, this and this.

Then all the fun details come out after first appearance.

To suggest these players have no idea is just idiotic.

Kind of. The QP9 is really more of a fill-in-the-blanks thing. E.G. On the 2xth day of Xuary the defendant X Xington did supply X Xbury with an illicit substance, namely Xcaine. There's a list of evidence, but it's an index, not an outline. Which is not to say the players don't know more than that, because they've most likely been interviewed (unless they declined) and had all the evidence thrown in their face.

 

[Porthoz]

I just feel so sorry for all the paparazzi who wasted a week planted on god's front yard... :doh:

I hope they had something to pass the time! :canabis:

 

[Kaz]

That's a load of crap, Kaz.

The first thing their lawyers would have requested was a brief of evidence. I've been charged with an offence before, it's the first thing that my lawyer got hold off after they let me go.

Titans players charged over cocaine supply denied opportunity to view evidence against them.


TITANS players charged over cocaine supply are demanding answers after the Queensland Crime and Corruption Commission played hardball in the probe that has rocked Australian sport.


The Courier-Mail can reveal the QCCC have turned up the heat, rejecting an application for Gold Coast stars to view the evidence that could lead to criminal convictions and a four-year WADA suspension.

Lawyer Campbell MacCallum, acting for current Titans Greg Bird, Dave Taylor, Kalifa Faifai Loa and Jamie Dowling and ex-Coaster Joe Vickery, requested a key document to prepare for two court hearings on March 5 and 9.

Known as a QP9, the legal document details an accused’s criminal history and a statement of facts related to the alleged offence. It can sometimes be obtained by legal representatives before an initial court hearing, but the QCCC’s reluctance to release the document has left Titans players in the dark on the precise nature of their alleged offences.

MacCallum confirmed he has hit roadblocks in his attempt to garner information on cocaine-supply charges relating to the Titans players he is representing.


“I have been trying to obtain the QP9 but they (the QCCC) are saying no,” MacCallum told The Courier-Mail.

“It’s basically a summary of facts and allegations. Normally you deal with the police but this time it’s the QCCC and they said no, you can see it in court. That’s what we’re up against.

“That’s the frustrating part for the players. The reality of the situation is the prosecution is allowed more time to compile a brief of evidence, so we have no idea what exactly the players will face in court.

“I’m trying to obtain more information but the QCCC aren’t obliged to provide it until the first court date. Some of our initial information is coming from newspaper, so this is very distressing for the players.

“At the moment, we are being fed half-information and getting bare-bones stuff.”



http://www.couriermail.com.au/sport...nce-against-them/story-fniabrr8-1227239078953

There is more info about it in the link above.

 

[Morkel]

That's either worrying because the QCCC have as much evidence as ASADA did, or promising because they're going to hit them hard in court.

Also, there are probably "facts" in the document that, by simply being known, will reveal how or when they were able to obtain said evidence. By keeping that confidential, at least temporarily, it potentially keeps the prosecutors one step ahead of the defendents (and any more they can catch out in the meantime).

 

[Porthoz]

Only thoroughly stupid idiots would keep doing anything remotely related to this affair, be it phone calls, text messages or IM, much less actually even coming near the stuff.

 

[Morkel]

Only thoroughly stupid idiots would keep doing anything remotely related to this affair, be it phone calls, text messages or IM, much less actually even coming near the stuff.

There's always one who breathes a sigh of relief, thinks they're in the clear, and rings his mates to say "phew, that was close".

 

[Foordy]

I just feel so sorry for all the paparazzi who wasted a week planted on god's front yard... :doh:

I hope they had something to pass the time! :canabis:

I hope they missed the story of the century because they wasted their time by reading an SMH article that's only purpose was to slander an innocent party to sell their papers

 

[ivanhungryjak]

I imagine the CCC didn't want to release the brief because the investigation was/is still going and may not have wanted some stuff to come out yet.

 

[Jason Simmons]

They're not going to have every single detail. But to suggest they don't have information pertaining to how the police have charged them is ludicrous.

The QP9 states the charges, and the time frames that relate to the charges, and how they've determined that a charge can be laid.

EG. Porthoz had illegal prescriptions of Viarga at this location, at this time, and we know that because informant X told us. We also have this, this and this.

Then all the fun details come out after first appearance.

To suggest these players have no idea is just idiotic.

Depends. Sometimes a Notice to Appear (NTA) has the full charge written on it. Sometimes it only has time, date (or dates), place and the short title of the offence or offences, ie: 1x Supply Dangerous Drug (DD) or 4x Supply DD or whatever the charges may be. In field issued NTA's there isn't sufficient room to write out most charges in full.

The first time many defendants know the full particulars of the charge, let alone the summary of the facts listed within the QP9 is when the prosecutor is reading them out in front of court.

In this particular case, according to media reports, the defence solicitors have not yet received the QP9. Most frequently that is because they aren't actually done. They only HAVE to be at court on the appearance date the defendant was given. There is no requirement to disclose anything to defence prior to that appearance date.

 

[Jason Simmons]

I imagine the CCC didn't want to release the brief because the investigation was/is still going and may not have wanted some stuff to come out yet.

Or they simply haven't finished it yet. Some of the players served with notices to appear aren't turning up to court until April...

 

[BroncosAlways]

Depends. Sometimes a Notice to Appear (NTA) has the full charge written on it. Sometimes it only has time, date (or dates), place and the short title of the offence or offences, ie: 1x Supply Dangerous Drug (DD) or 4x Supply DD or whatever the charges may be. In field issued NTA's there isn't sufficient room to write out most charges in full.

The first time many defendants know the full particulars of the charge, let alone the summary of the facts listed within the QP9 is when the prosecutor is reading them out in front of court.

In this particular case, according to media reports, the defence solicitors have not yet received the QP9. Most frequently that is because they aren't actually done. They only HAVE to be at court on the appearance date the defendant was given. There is no requirement to disclose anything to defence prior to that appearance date.

Remind me never to **** with you