Brett Stewart found not guilty of sexual assault

[Pass the Ball]

Yeah I think Eels Dude is right, drunkenness may be used to get a reduced sentence but in my uneducated opinion it won`t let him off the hook.

Anyway, I can`t talk for TimmyB, but for me the law is completely irrelevant, whether he is found guilty or innocent, it doesn`t change the person he is. Which I believe is a good man who may (or may not) have made a big mistake under the influence of excessive amounts of alcohol. I don`t think this can be compared to hurting someone while drink driving, cos drink driving in itself is a crime (even without injury), but getting so drunk you don`t know what you`re doing is not.

Getting drunk is not against the law..

Driving a car drunk is, and

sexually assaulting someone is also...(Nothing to do with the Stewart case - hypothetically speaking only)...

 

[brook]

Only an assumption, but could make sense....

(trying to figure out how someone with such a good record both on and off the field could get into so much trouble).

I suspect that is a pretty unlikely explanation.

 

[TimmyB]

Just another take on it - according to the rape crisis centre nsw (link provided earlier) - sexual assault also covers the putting of a finger into someones mouth against their will.
I think we may have jumped to the other conclusion.
Now if that were the case it would have been much easier to do under any scenario...

Nah, the NSW Rape Crisis Centre has just been too lazy to split the sentence into two so it reads the way you are saying. Sexual assault just covers penetration of genitalia/anus with anything/any part of the body or genital to mouth contact.

 

[bartman]

Fantastic news that the NRL and Gallop led by example on this in this morning's meeting, dragging the Manly Board over the coals, fining their sorry arses, and using the Code of Conduct to achieve the end action that Manly should have had enough balls to take.

I'm normally a union man (the organisation, not the sport), but the RLPA should hang their heads in shame. Innocent until proven guilty was never an issue in whether or not a player shoul dbe stood down for so obviously bringing the game into disrepute by his own actions. Once a charge like this is laid, the player should be automatically stood down - the RLPA have a role to argue that a player remains on full pay during the period until the verdict is delivered, as he should be.

I'm glad we look to be entering a new era where our game takes strong steps to cut out the garbage behaviour it has accepted from its players in recent years. This can only be better for the game - its image, its income, its support, and its longetivity.

 

[GB!]

:roll:

 

[TimmyB]

yes, but not in the crimes act in relation to sexual assault.. the argument is therefore null and void.

It was previously.

I suspect the only reason (and a good one at that) it was removed was the effect it has on the victim - ie: to diminish the gravity of the crime perpetrated against them and the legitimacy of their feelings.

To me it's a stretch to suggest that there is specific intent in cases of murder and not sexual assault.

 

[attila_the_gorilla]

Getting drunk is not against the law..

Driving a car drunk is, and

sexually assaulting someone is also...(Nothing to do with the Stewart case - hypothetically speaking only)...

Just saying that you cannot compare the two. If you cause an injury while driving, being drunk is actually gonna be an aggravating factor and will in fact make it a crime. But in the case of a sexual assault, being drunk will certainly not be an aggravating factor, if anything it could be the opposite.

 

[TimmyB]

Fantastic news that the NRL and Gallop led by example on this in this morning's meeting, dragging the Manly Board over the coals, fining their sorry arses, and using the Code of Conduct to achieve the end action that Manly should have had enough balls to take.

I'm normally a union man (the organisation, not the sport), but the RLPA should hang their heads in shame. Innocent until proven guilty was never an issue in whether or not a player shoul dbe stood down for so obviously bringing the game into disrepute by his own actions. Once a charge like this is laid, the player should be automatically stood down - the RLPA have a role to argue that a player remains on full pay during the period until the verdict is delivered, as he should be.

I'm glad we look to be entering a new era where our game takes strong steps to cut out the garbage behaviour it has accepted from its players in recent years. This can only be better for the game - its image, its income, its support, and its longetivity.

The suspension was for drunkenness, not the alleged crime. It's a scary thought that anyone could argue someone be prevented from playing for an alleged crime.

What if it takes a season to resolve and the charge turned out to be a crock of sh*t? Had Laffranchi been suspended until his charge was resolved, he would have missed out on playing for Austraia; even though he was found not guilty!!

 

[perverse]

It was previously.

I suspect the only reason (and a good one at that) it was removed was the effect it has on the victim - ie: to diminish the gravity of the crime perpetrated against them and the legitimacy of their feelings.

To me it's a stretch to suggest that there is specific intent in cases of murder and not sexual assault.

lol, look if you want to sit there and believe that stewart is a good bloke and yadda yadda yadda then theres nothing i can say that will stop you believing that. it is your opinion and you are entitled to it.

what i am trying to say is that it will have no bearing on whether he is found guilty or not (nor should it) and the mere act of getting drunk in the fashion that he has and putting himself in the situation to begin with is grounds enough for punishment by the NRL. the NRL have a responsibility to protect the code to the fans, the clubs and the players who do the right thing. action had to be taken, and thankfully it was.

 

[attila_the_gorilla]

Nah, the NSW Rape Crisis Centre has just been too lazy to split the sentence into two so it reads the way you are saying. Sexual assault just covers penetration of genitalia/anus with anything/any part of the body or genital to mouth contact.

Sneagle! Stop spreading false info! [-X

 

[sneagle]

Sorry, no intention meant - that was how I read it

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"What is sexual assault? [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
Sexual assault is a crime in which there is unwanted or forced sexual contact with another person, from someone touching you to someone forcing you to have sex against your will. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]A person can be charged with sexual assault if he: [/FONT]

• [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]puts his finger, penis, hand or tongue, or an object, into your vagina, anus or mouth against your will, or[/FONT]
• [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]forces you to put objects into your own vagina or anus, or [/FONT]
• [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]performs oral sex on you against your will, or makes you give him oral sex.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]A person can also be charged with a sexual assault offence if they try or attempt to do these things. "[/FONT]
As per:
http://www.nswrapecrisis.com.au/Information Sheets/Understanding-sexual-violence.htm

Many thanks TimmyB for clarifying..

 

[TimmyB]

lol, look if you want to sit there and believe that stewart is a good bloke and yadda yadda yadda then theres nothing i can say that will stop you believing that. it is your opinion and you are entitled to it.

I have no idea if he's a good bloke or not. I don't actually care. To me it's just an philosophically interesting. My conclusion is I'd find it hard to condemn somebody on an offence committed whilst utterly inebriated.

what i am trying to say is that it will have no bearing on whether he is found guilty or not (nor should it) and the mere act of getting drunk in the fashion that he has and putting himself in the situation to begin with is grounds enough for punishment by the NRL. the NRL have a responsibility to protect the code to the fans, the clubs and the players who do the right thing. action had to be taken, and thankfully it was.

Mate, read my first post - I say as much. I think the suspension the NRL has handed out is about perfect.

 

[bartman]

The suspension was for drunkenness, not the alleged crime. It's a scary thought that anyone could argue someone be prevented from playing for an alleged crime.

No, the suspension was for bringing the game into disrepute, as allowed for in the players' standard NRL Code of Conduct. Drunkeness was only the undisputed avenue with which Stewart achiveved this, the other avenue is yet to be decided in the court of law. He is still being paid his wage, but if he breaks the code of conduct he has no right to play, irrespective of charges and verdicts.

What if it takes a season to resolve and the charge turned out to be a crock of sh*t? Had Laffranchi been suspended until his charge was resolved, he would have missed out on playing for Austraia; even though he was found not guilty!!

Forget Lafranchi. That was then, this is now.

So what if it takes a season to resolve? You can bet from 2009 onwards that more players will (finally) be a bit more careful about their own public behaviour and about taking responsibility (about time too), as a result of this decision by the NRL. No player wants to risk being sidelined for that long, even if they are on full pay the whole time. So only good can come from this, and it's separate from whatever verdict is eventaully handed down.

You can bet from 2009 that clubs will start to tighten up on acceptable player behaviour as well - after all the players are their employees, and they don't want to be paying them while the sit on the sidelines with their duynces caps on. Again, only good can come of this, and I applaud the NRL stance.

 

[attila_the_gorilla]

Hmmm well according to this excerpt, you are actually correct, Sneagle.

What gives, TimmyB?

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]puts his finger, penis, hand or tongue, or an object, into your vagina, anus or mouth against your will, or[/FONT]

 

[TimmyB]

No, the suspension was for bringing the game into disrepute, as allowed for in the players' standard NRL Code of Conduct. Drunkeness was only the undisputed avenue with which Stewart achiveved this, the other avenue is yet to be decided in the court of law. He is still being paid his wage, but if he breaks the code of conduct he has no right to play, irrespective of charges and verdicts.

Exactly, so he got suspended for drunkeness. You can spin it whichever way you want, but his public drunkeness brought the game into disrepute and he was suspended for what was deemed an appropriate time for that offence. He was not suspended for an alleged rape.

Forget Lafranchi. That was then, this is now.

I didn't bring up Laffranchi as a precedent. I brought Laffranchi up to show the folly that could come of suspending players that aren't guilty of rape.

So what if it takes a season to resolve? You can bet from 2009 onwards that more players will (finally) be a bit more careful about their own public behaviour and about taking responsibility (about time too), as a result of this decision by the NRL. No player wants to risk being sidelined for that long, even if they are on full pay the whole time. So only good can come from this, and it's separate from whatever verdict is eventaully handed down.

What if a player isn't drinking, but has a false accusation level against him through no fault of his own whatsoever? Do you suspend him then? Effectively rubbing them out of the game for a spurious charge that was no fault of their own.

You can bet from 2009 that clubs will start to tighten up on acceptable player behaviour as well - after all the players are their employees, and they don't want to be paying them while the sit on the sidelines with their duynces caps on. Again, only good can come of this, and I applaud the NRL stance.

Look I have no dramas with the four game suspension. Big difference between four game and the entire trial process.

 

[TimmyB]

Hmmm well according to this excerpt, you are actually correct, Sneagle.

What gives, TimmyB?

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]puts his finger, penis, hand or tongue, or an object, into your vagina, anus or mouth against your will, or[/FONT]

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ca190082/s61h.html

Like I said, they've been lazy - it should read puts his finger, penis, hand, tongue or an object into your vagina or anus or puts his penis into your mouth.

 

[attila_the_gorilla]

61I Sexual assault

Any person who has sexual intercourse with another person without the consent of the other person and who knows that the other person does not consent to the sexual intercourse is liable to imprisonment for 14 years.





http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ca190082/s61i.html

And yeah the previous link you gave defines sexual intercourse.

 

[attila_the_gorilla]

I think the part
"and who knows that the other person does not consent"
may prove crucial in this case.

 

[bartman]

Exactly, so he got suspended for drunkeness. You can spin it whichever way you want, but his public drunkeness brought the game into disrepute and he was suspended for what was deemed an appropriate time for that offence. He was not suspended for an alleged rape.

And your point is?

I didn't bring up Laffranchi as a precedent. I brought Laffranchi up to show the folly that could come of suspending players that aren't guilty of rape.

What folly? The game being seen as taking a strong stance against players bringing it into disrepute through their own behaviour - in Lafranchi's case making the media for cheating on his wife and ending up with a charge against him. No folly there imo, whether the end charge is guilty or not guilty.

What if a player isn't drinking, but has a false accusation level against him through no fault of his own whatsoever? Do you suspend him then? Effectively rubbing them out of the game for a spurious charge that was no fault of their own.

In my opinion, very few "false accusations" would end up in a police charge. Where someone is charged, I fail to see how it would be through "no fault of their own". Happy to hear an example. As I've said above, Lafranchi is not an example here - that was entirely avoidable through his choice of behaviour.

Look I have no dramas with the four game suspension. Big difference between four game and the entire trial process.

The four game suspension takes it neatly up until the trial date, doesn't it? I'd imagine the length of the suspension will be revisted - by the NRL and Manly - at that time.

 

[bartman]

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ca190082/s61h.html

Like I said, they've been lazy - it should read puts his finger, penis, hand, tongue or an object into your vagina or anus or puts his penis into your mouth.

Totally agree with TimmyB here, please take his word for it.

The NSW Rape Crisis Centre has used that sentence to try and simplify things, and unfortunately it leaves people looking deeper into it thinging that a finger in a mouth means something it legally doesn't.