Bulldogs may face civil suit

[Shifty]

Bulldogs could face civil suit by woman
By Anthony Peterson
May 1, 2004

A HIGH-profile lawyer is helping the family of the young woman who accused Bulldogs players of rape to prepare a civil action against the club.

The news has tempered declarations by Bulldogs management that the issue is now behind them.

The family has been overwhelmed with offers of financial assistance and emotional support since police announced on Tuesday that no charges would be laid and the investigation was closed.

It is understood wealthy identities in the Coffs Harbour district are willing to ensure the legal costs do not burden the tight-knit family.

The 20-year-old woman and her parents have left Coffs Harbour as she tries to put her life back together. They are not expected to return until next week.

A highly regarded lawyer has agreed to help the family launch a private action against the players she claims attacked her.

A timetable for the action and the particulars of the claim have not been disclosed.

Sources said despite Bulldogs management declaring the issue dead, the woman and her family were determined the collapse of the criminal case did not mean the end.

"This is a long way from over," one source said.

The woman, the mother of an 18-month-old boy, has yet to agree to tell her side of the story to a media outlet, despite the family being inundated with offers.

Meanwhile, the new Mayor of Coffs Harbour has angered the community by refusing to black-list the Bulldogs from playing future pre-season matches at the town.

Residents, including staff at the Pacific Bay Resort, have been critical of player behaviour – separate from criminal allegations – when the team has visited the town during the past two years.

Mayor Keith Rhoades said the council would continue to invite NRL clubs to play a trial match at the Coffs Harbour International Sports Stadium.

Hosting the big-name clubs injected millions of dollars into the economy each year, he said.

Despite the bad publicity after the Bulldogs' last two visits, Mr Rhoades said the club was welcome to negotiate a return to the region.

"(The) council has no policy with respect to any sporting organisation and no black list," he said.

The head of Strike Force McGuigon Chief Inspector Jason Breton said the woman was devastated when he told her of the decision not to press charges.

The decision followed advice from the DPP that there was insufficient evidence for the case to succeed in court.

Insp Breton said the woman broke down and needed to be comforted.

The Courier-Mail

http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,9439500%5E26462,00.html[/quote]

 

[[furrycat]]

Absolutely no chance whatsoever with a civil case...

 

[Rexxy]

She has civil rights, she can do it if she feels her civili rights have been abused.

Torts I've heard are proven on the basis of probability.

Maybe there is an argument for assault. I wouldn't know as I know nothing about the law.

This would all be uneccesary if the club had played this incident properly.

If I was Mr A , Mr O and MR V, I'd be concerned all my private life would be out for all to see.


(They aren't the initials of players - just their predicilictions. Mr Anal, Mr Oral and Mr Vaginal....you get the idea)

 

[Shifty]

I hope that this if does go ahead that the players innocence is made more clear, either way. If they are guilty they deserve to be punished, if they are innocent they deserve the punishment to end. Innocent players are already being punished.

 

[dice]

]Absolutely no chance whatsoever with a civil case...

Why? The DPP said there was insufficient evidence to charge any individuals. This does not mean there is not sufficient evidence to prove she was raped (or whatever the Civil Court equivalents are).

 

[ibeme]

If civil action reveals the facts, then perhaps it's the best thing that can happen.

I just hope that if she loses, it's enough to silence the critics. I hope that if she wins, all the facts are revealed.

 

[[furrycat]]

]Absolutely no chance whatsoever with a civil case...

Why? The DPP said there was insufficient evidence to charge any individuals. This does not mean there is not sufficient evidence to prove she was raped (or whatever the Civil Court equivalents are).

And does that prove anything if she was raped? Sure, you can prove that, but how in gods name are you going to prove The Bulldogs raped her? I mean, you cannot use The Bulldogs as a scapegoat if she was raped without evidence. If she can sue them for rape, then they should be charged, and that isn't going to happen at this time. She needs to prove that the Bulldogs were at FAULT when she raped, Ie. They were RESPONSIBLE for it (if she was). I can't see how they could be held responsible unless they raped her.

 

[Sportsjock]

She has a great chance of winning simply because civil cases are on the basis of probability , as opposed to beyond reasonable doubt.

And its highly probable something occured.

Unless the Bulldogs lawyers can somehow try and get a judge line up of Bulldogs fans, I think they are in alot of shit.

And mostly, what they will shudder over at night, is the fact names will be named this time around, and it will likel be a very public case.

 

[[furrycat]]

Yes civl cases use the balance of probability... But you cannot make a ruling in a civil case on a criminal matter. They can only rule on whether the doggies were at fault. And no, the names do not have to be named...

 

[ibeme]

I have a number of questions that someone may be able to answer.

What happens in a civil suit if it's deemed that the media coverage has prejudiced the case?

If she was unable to identify all of the players, then who is the case against?

How is probability decided?

By the way, it's not guaranteed that names and information will be made public in a civil case. The judge has the power to supress it.

 

[[furrycat]]

I have a number of questions that someone may be able to answer.

What happens in a civil suit if it's deemed that the media coverage has prejudiced the case?

If she was unable to identify all of the players, then who is the case against?

How is probability decided?

By the way, it's not guaranteed that names and information will be made public in a civil case. The judge has the power to supress it.

1. It is at the discretion of the magistrate of what he thinks of that.

2. That's the big question mark. She cannot identify all the players apparently. The case I suppose would just be against The Bulldogs management, in an attempt to prove their fault

3. In a criminal case, it is reasonable doubt, which means a jury/judge must have NO doubt as to what has happened (99.99%). In the balance of probablilty, the magistrate could be 51% sure that a case has been proven, and he may award the compensation. It is a balance as to what he/she thinks is correct as presented by the barristers.

4. The names are not public record in a civil case as no one has been charged. The media are not allowed to view the case, so no names will be named as to who was involved in the rape allegations. The only way names will be named, is if the Bulldogs announce them.

 

[~doggie~diva~]

If she was unable to identify all of the players, then who is the case against?
quote]
thats what im thinking....
"uh....i think it was him...umm....him and that one over there....and i THINK it was that dude"
*points randomly at anyone"

 

[legend]

Just think of O.J Simpson guys, he was found not guilty int eh criminal trial but will be paying through the nose for the rest of his life because he lost the civil suit. I know we are speaking about different countries, but the media would have prejudiced that case more than the Bulldogs case so I would say the Dogs will need some good lawyers on a hefty retainer.

 

[[furrycat]]

The USA allows a criminal jurisdiction to be appealed in a civil case for compensation, and they do not use the balance of probabilities.

 

[DJ1]

Just think of O.J Simpson guys, he was found not guilty int eh criminal trial but will be paying through the nose for the rest of his life because he lost the civil suit. I know we are speaking about different countries, but the media would have prejudiced that case more than the Bulldogs case so I would say the Dogs will need some good lawyers on a hefty retainer.

Don't forget that the evidence against OJ was strong enough to get to trial and it was actually a shock that the jury aquitted him. It was not an "insufficient evidence" situation.