Brett Stewart found not guilty of sexual assault

[sneagle]

www.leaguehq.com.au

"Stewart case adjourned

Bellinda Kontominas | May 27, 2009

The sexual assault case against NRL star Brett Stewart has been adjourned until next month to allow police to collect more evidence.
Stewart, 24, the former poster boy of the NRL, was not required to attend when his case was briefly mentioned at the Downing Centre Local Court this morning.
The Manly star and former Test fullback has pleaded not guilty to one count of sexual intercourse without consent and one count of indecent assault following an alleged incident which occurred after the club's season launch in Manly on March 6.
During the alleged assault police claimed Stewart "forced his tongue" into the 17 year old's mouth.
Stewart's lawyer, Ian Byrne, told the court he had received eight items from the police brief but was still waiting on four.
These included phone records and statements from a police officer and two other people, he said.
The alleged victim's lawyer, Nana Frishling, told the court she had no objections against Stewart's legal team seeing documents relating to her health from Royal North Shore hospital.
The case was adjourned until June 23."


So it seems the police requested the extension to collect more evidence.
I guess they are just being thorough, but if they had strong enough evidence to charge him without the DNA results, you would think that they would have a strong enough case to proceed.. I don't know how things work, just wondering and also why the delay in providing the defense with some of the evidence???

 

[brook]

no idea about why a DNA test for the first would return a negative - cleaned her teeth before the cops got there perhaps?

or even just swallowed, I can't imagine any DNA from his saliva would be sticking around all that long.

As for the second charge, if as seems likely the sexual intercourse without consent charge relates to digital penetration theres really not going to be anything to leave behind.

 

[sneagle]

or even just swallowed, I can't imagine any DNA from his saliva would be sticking around all that long.

As for the second charge, if as seems likely the sexual intercourse without consent charge relates to digital penetration theres really not going to be anything to leave behind.

They apparently scrapped under his fingers for DNA....negative response (also no evidence of Stewart on her at all either) .... but I guess swallowed that as well....:crazy:

 

[brook]

They apparently scrapped under his fingers for DNA....negative response (also no evidence of Stewart on her at all either) .... but I guess swallowed that as well....:crazy:

Its not CSI - I don't think things are as clear cut as you think they are.

I'm not actually saying I think he's guilty either, I wasn't there so I don't have a clue what happened. Simply that lack of DNA doesn't actually mean all that much at all.

 

[CC_Eagle]

Surely if there was sufficient evidence after a near three month investigation, it wouldn't have been adjourned?

 

[herbert henry1908]

Surely if there was sufficient evidence after a near three month investigation, it wouldn't have been adjourned?

that does seem odd.

It hardly seem like a complicated case , why the need to gather more evidence after 3 months?

Although it could just reflect the incompetence of the NSW police/DPP.

 

[Big Time]

that does seem odd.

It hardly seem like a complicated case , why the need to gather more evidence after 3 months?

Although it could just reflect the incompetence of the NSW police/DPP.

Incompetence?? Maybe there is just no case there. Things get complicated when people start telling lies!!!

 

[sportive cupid]

that does seem odd.

It hardly seem like a complicated case , why the need to gather more evidence after 3 months?

Although it could just reflect the incompetence of the NSW police/DPP.

It could also reflect the fact that while this case consumes everyone here,it is not in fact the only criminal case on which the police/Dpp are working on???

 

[sportive cupid]

Or it could reflect that some of the evidence lies within medical records which also contain irrelevant information which needs to be seperated.

Could also reflect the ,in the case of sexual assualt it is necessary for police to receive a statement from the first person who was informed of the alledged crime.This is not always the police and not always an easy person to track down.
Brook is right.This isn't CSI and the real world doesn't work in one hour.

 

[CharlieF]

Hows this for an unlikely scenario.

Stewart previously sleeps with this girl.

Dad finds out and is super pissed off, so he decides payback.

Decides he will track Stewarts movements and waits for him. Makes sure someone is ready with webcam or the like.

Girl need not know what is happening. Bonus if she does.

Stewart, who previously thought was OK with the girl is easy game and has no chance.



Sounds far fetched?????? Anything is possible.

 

[Pete Cash]

That sounds like complete nonsense. If Stewart had consensual sex with her that would be his defence.

 

[Simo]

Hows this for an unlikely scenario.

Stewart previously sleeps with this girl.

Dad finds out and is super pissed off, so he decides payback.

Decides he will track Stewarts movements and waits for him. Makes sure someone is ready with webcam or the like.

Girl need not know what is happening. Bonus if she does.

Stewart, who previously thought was OK with the girl is easy game and has no chance.



Sounds far fetched?????? Anything is possible.

Are we that desperate for a Stewart defence?

So you think the dad purposely sets up his daughter to root stweart so he can film it, because he is pissed off that stweart has slept with his daughter?

This is just getting silly.

 

[Manly Preniers in 2005]

Hey guys, there was another court hearing today, and its been adjourned until September?
So, for those who are familiar with the court system(I have some idea, HSC and a few uni subjects) has this case gone past the preliminary hearing? I don't know the court has decided that there is enough evidence to hear a trial as this is still being heard in a local court, and has not gone to the trial stage yet. Is this still the case as I believe?

 

[bartman]

Haven't heard about today's Stewart hearing (?), but I think the last hearing was delayed by the prosecution/police seeking more time to build their case...?

Adjourning it again until September seems a long time to wait for a result either way.

 

[t-ba]

It's still in the Local Court (Mags/County for those in QLD/Vic), so no, it hasn't gone past committal yet. That'd be the 'preliminary hearing' you're talking about.

By the sounds of it September is a mention too, so it's going to be a while before it even gets to that stage.

By September it will be over half a year. If his lawyers are any chop they'll look to get the charges thrown out if Prosecutions aren't ready. Six months and no Committal date? Crazy.

 

[t-ba]

That sounds like complete nonsense. If Stewart had consensual sex with her that would be his defence.

Best defence for rape ever btw. People who maintain that from the start in 'he said she said' cases are almost guaranteed of not getting convicted.

 

[Manly Preniers in 2005]

It's still in the Local Court (Mags/County for those in QLD/Vic), so no, it hasn't gone past committal yet. That'd be the 'preliminary hearing' you're talking about.

By the sounds of it September is a mention too, so it's going to be a while before it even gets to that stage.

By September it will be over half a year. If his lawyers are any chop they'll look to get the charges thrown out if Prosecutions aren't ready. Six months and no Committal date? Crazy.

Yeah, thats the way I saw it too, and your right I stuffed up I got the civil/criminal law mixed up, its commital in the criminal system. Given this is a sexual assault case the prosecution must really be struggling for evidence. Usually the prosecution would like to get through the commital as quickly as possible given that witnesses memory etc. can become questionable after a long period of time. (Sounds odd I know, but this is indeed taught in HSC Legal Studies)

 

[sneagle]

As far as I know (note - absolutely no legal expertise here).
The case is still at the commital hearing stage.
The original commital hearing in May (26 I think) was adjourned as the defence was still awaiting several pieces of evidence to be handed over and the police requested time to gather more evidence.
The defence also requested medical and school records to be provided.
Today it was adjourned until September (no date as yet) as there was a problem with the evidence.
I.E the defence has asked the court to rule on what evidence is priveleged, and for that which is deemed to not be - be turned over to them.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/06/23/2606220.htm?section=sport
Stewart's lawyers want access to psychiatrist's report

Brett Stewart's case will return to court in September. (AAP: Paul Miller)


Lawyers for Manly rugby league player Brett Stewart, who is facing sexual assault charges, have asked to get access to privileged documents in the case.
The star full-back has pleaded not guilty to sexual intercourse without consent and the indecent assault of a 17-year-old girl.
The 24-year-old was excused from appearing in court today, but his lawyers have asked for a decision to be made on which documents in the case are privileged, including psychiatrist's comments on the victim.
Stewart's lawyers will then seek access to the documents that are not privileged.
Stewart's bail has been continued today and the case will return to court in September."

No mention of the police evidence that was to be turned over...

 

[skeepe]

Manly star Brett Stewart has case to answer over sex assault charges, lawyers admit

• By Lisa Davies, Chief Court Reporter
• From: The Daily Telegraph
• September 28, 2009 11:06AM

MANLY rugby league star Brett Stewart will face a committal hearing early next year as his lawyers conceded in a Sydney court he does have a case to answer.

Stewart, 24, has already pleaded not guilty to one count of sexual intercourse without consent and one count of indecent assault.

The charges relate to an incident after the club’s season launch in North Manly on March 6 this year, just 48 hours after the NRL launched its $1million advertising campaign in which Stewart starred.

Stewart’s lawyers were back before the Downing Centre Local Court this morning to discuss witnesses for a committal hearing, which will take place on February 4 next year.

However by agreement with the DPP solicitor Fiona Gray, there will be just one witness at the hearing – the alleged victim’s treating psychiatrist.

Stewart’s barrister Clive Steirn SC told the court the committal hearing would contain a concession by the defence that there was “a prima facie case” on the set of allegations to be tendered in a statement of facts by the DPP.

“There is a case to answer,” Mr Steirn said.

However his client would vehemently deny the allegations and defend the case at trial.

A number of other procedural issues relating to the subpoena of medical records were set to be worked out in the intervening months.

Magistrate Jane Culver adjourned the case for a mention in October.

Stewart would not be required to attend court until the one-day committal hearing on February 4.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...es-lawyers-admit/story-e6frexnr-1225780366114

 

[nitabita]

This is all part of the normal process.. He would have always had a “case to answer” at this stage of the process – the telecrap are just taking a quote from Brett’s barrister and spinning it to make it look like a new story/development.