News Curtis Scott

Didn't take long for him to develop the Canberra culture

 

[bileduct]

Scotts lawyer is saying it's the police who won't release the footage.



Given the circumstances, I don't think Scott should be stood down.

Defence lawyers are notoriously full of shit.

It seems to me that there are alternatives to simply handing over the footage to the NRL, such as having one or more members of the integrity commission attend Mr Eid's office for a private viewing.

Something tells me that, as was the case with Fightin' Wighton, Scott's strategy is to feign innocence right up until the moment he pleads guilty. The footage must be bad, because if otherwise I am sure Mr Eid would be talking about finding a way to work with both the NRL and NSW Police instead of publicly talking shit about them.

Scott will be stood down on Monday.

 

[SBD82]

Defence lawyers are notoriously full of shit.

It seems to me that there are alternatives to simply handing over the footage to the NRL, such as having one or more members of the integrity commission attend Mr Eid's office for a private viewing.

Something tells me that, as was the case with Fightin' Wighton, Scott's strategy is to feign innocence right up until the moment he pleads guilty. The footage must be bad, because if otherwise I am sure Mr Eid would be talking about finding a way to work with both the NRL and NSW Police instead of publicly talking shit about them.

Scott will be stood down on Monday.

Is it confirmed that the defence is even in possession of the footage? If the brief hasn’t been served yet, his defence team is unlikely to have it. A two week turnaround would be unusually quick to have the brief served.

And if Scott’s solicitor does have the footage, and he felt that releasing it to the NRL would in any way jeopardise the legal defence, he’d be a fool to do it. His job is to do the right thing by his client, regardless of the expectations of the public or his client’s employer.

 

[bileduct]

Is it confirmed that the defence is even in possession of the footage? If the brief hasn’t been served yet, his defence team is unlikely to have it. A two week turnaround would be unusually quick to have the brief served.

And if Scott’s solicitor does have the footage, and he felt that releasing it to the NRL would in any way jeopardise the legal defence, he’d be a fool to do it. His job is to do the right thing by his client, regardless of the expectations of the public or his client’s employer.

Yeah I wondered about that, but the comments he's made seem to be reflective of him having seen it and being in possession of it. He's not saying that the cops haven't given it to him yet, he's saying they haven't given him permission to share it.

 

[SBD82]

Yeah I wondered about that, but the comments he's made seem to be reflective of him having seen it and being in possession of it. He's not saying that the cops haven't given it to him yet, he's saying they haven't given him permission to share it.

Yeah that’s confusing. I’m all out of guesses then. Wait and see I suppose.

 

[bileduct]

Yeah that’s confusing. I’m all out of guesses then. Wait and see I suppose.

The way I look at it, the NRL isn't going to be short on lawyers who would have an understanding of the relevant legislation pertaining to disclosure of briefs of evidence, and given that they have insisted on the footage being made available to them despite Mr Eid's objections I believe they know he is stalling them.

 

[SBD82]

The way I look at it, the NRL isn't going to be short on lawyers who would have an understanding of the relevant legislation pertaining to disclosure of briefs of evidence, and given that they have insisted on the footage being made available to them despite Mr Eid's objections I believe they know he is stalling them.

I don’t necessarily share your faith in the NRL when it comes to seeking and responding to good advice. But it seems you’re probably right. Close at least.

The one other thing I’d question is the value of getting footage from the defence. They’d be under no obligation to provide the full original source material.

 

[betcats]

Is it confirmed that the defence is even in possession of the footage? If the brief hasn’t been served yet, his defence team is unlikely to have it. A two week turnaround would be unusually quick to have the brief served.

And if Scott’s solicitor does have the footage, and he felt that releasing it to the NRL would in any way jeopardise the legal defence, he’d be a fool to do it. His job is to do the right thing by his client, regardless of the expectations of the public or his client’s employer.

If the footage jeopardise’s his defence then he has no defence.

I mean really all they need is footage of Scott throwing a kick or punch and it’s over for him, how egregiously could they handled him that it justifies assault? And given he has been charged with two assaults I daresay that’s exactly what it shows. Either way without some footage to exonerate him it’s Curtis word vs a bunch of cops word.

 

[betcats]

Lawyers delaying tactic seems obvious. Create as much doubt as possible over his guilt so he can play footy as long as possible before taking the hit and hopefully this gets wrapped up nicely like wighton later in the year after the media heat has been taken out of it.

 

[myrrh ken]

As i understand it, and maybe im wrong, and if i am, i will happily retract my comments and cop it... but as i know it, the defence get given all the evidence the prosecution intend to use, but providing that to a third party, any thrid party is not legal unless consented to by both parties or sactioned by a judge.

A defence lawyer cant just make any and all evidence public knowledge as they see fit, it would be a risk to taint the jury pool.
Again, i could well be wrong.

Well im not sure either. The defence needs to use evidence to question other people. Obviously they normally dont need police or court approval to do so. Its in their interest to ensure there are adequate controls on evidence. If they do release evidence for the purposes of unsettling the case then they might be in contempt.

I would think releasing the footage to the nrls lawyers with a non disclosure agreement should be sufficient. This defence lawyer claims to be seeking permission from the police not the court which is strange.

 

[Timmay]

Defence lawyers are notoriously full of shit.

 

[AnonymousLurker]

NRL to appease the click bait media have really gone into murky waters on the whole no fault and associated policy and this Curtis Scott situation is perfect example /
By them asking for footage which will he used in court by defence or prosecution and then the NRL making decision in sanctions they are jeopardising Curtis trial.

If his lawyer was of any substance , I’m sure there is laws where a employer can’t bully you into providing video footage that will be a court hearing and he would be able to sue them.

Then you got Tyrone may getting additional sanctions after being suspended all last Year . Would he have been given a full season and 5 game suspension if court case was completed quicker and resolved at start of last season . Of course not

 

[TheFrog]

Then you got Tyrone may getting additional sanctions after being suspended all last Year . Would he have been given a full season and 5 game suspension if court case was completed quicker and resolved at start of last season . Of course not

It is a well known fact that the moral values the NRL bangs on about are dictated to it by mainstream media.

 

[myrrh ken]

The one other thing I’d question is the value of getting footage from the defence. They’d be under no obligation to provide the full original source material.

NRL can't get it off the coppers. There is an employment relationship between the NRL and the player which is the basis of the request. Basically give us a reason not to stand you down.

Defence lawyer is amusing here - swinging out at coppers and the NRL. Must be bad.

 

[typicalfan]

You would be worried any footage supplied to the NRL would get out into the media somehow before due course.

 

[SBD82]

NRL can't get it off the coppers. There is an employment relationship between the NRL and the player which is the basis of the request. Basically give us a reason not to stand you down.

Defence lawyer is amusing here - swinging out at coppers and the NRL. Must be bad.

Sure.

But what confidence can the NRL have that they’ve received an unedited version?

 

[Vee]

NRL can't get it off the coppers. There is an employment relationship between the NRL and the player which is the basis of the request. Basically give us a reason not to stand you down.

Defence lawyer is amusing here - swinging out at coppers and the NRL. Must be bad.

Sounds to me like scott's mouthpiece is being clever with words. Claims to require police consent to release it without quoting any law. You'd think if there was one, he'd quote it to prove his argument.

 

[myrrh ken]

Sure.

But what confidence can the NRL have that they’ve received an unedited version?

If they edit it and got found out they would be in deep shit. Not even a defence lawyer would attempt that

 

[SBD82]

If they edit it and got found out they would be in deep shit. Not even a defence lawyer would attempt that

Deep shit from who?

They’re not legally obliged to provide it in the first place.

 

[myrrh ken]

If they are giving nrl an edited version of CCTV and represent that it's the evidence it could possibly constitute fraud/ gain benefit by deception offence.

At the very least the lawyer would be up for professional misconduct.

 

[nick87]

If they are giving nrl an edited version of CCTV and represent that it's the evidence it could possibly constitute fraud/ gain benefit by deception offence.

At the very least the lawyer would be up for professional misconduct.

...

f**king wot m8?
I'd love to know how Scott or his representitives would face any legal consequences for providing edited footage to a private employer. The NRL have no legal jurisdiction. They dont have ANY legal rights to any evidence. None what so ever.

Scott and his team could provide a video of their arse and f**king balls to the NRL and the only repercussions that would occur is harsher penalties from the NRL and a very bad relationship.

Scott might face some repercussions from his employer for such deception, and perhaps the lawyer might get some bad publicity and lose clients for being a bit of a merkin, but they could do what ever they like to the footage they provide to the NRL and not a single charge of fraud could be laid agianst them and the Bar wouldnt give the faintest f**k what a lawyer gives to a private employer.