News Dylan Walker off-field indiscretions

[myrrh ken]

You'd have to prove she intentionally gave false evidence.

What she has said first up is that he yanked my hair.

She now says that, after some reflection, he went to grab her shoulder but her hair got in the way.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-02...s-fiancee-backflips-on-testimony/10850004lder and her hair got in the way.

I don't even think there's much of a difference really.

 

[Tooooks]

You'd have to prove she intentionally gave false evidence.

What she has said first up is that he yanked my hair.

She now says that, after some reflection, he went to grab her shoulder but her hair got in the way.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-02...s-fiancee-backflips-on-testimony/10850004lder and her hair got in the way.

I don't even think there's much of a difference really.

A DV victim becoming uncooperative is very common. She will not be charged.

 

[firechild]

So, if Walker is found guilty, would his partner be at risk of being charged with contempt for lying under oath?

I think you're talking about perjury, not contempt.
The answer is no, for a variety of reasons. Firstly, even if Walker is found guilty of DV, it doesn't necessarily mean that the hair pull is accepted as fact. They may find that whether her hair or shoulder was grabbed, this constitutes DV. Secondly, those in the legal system, including police and magistrates, rarely punish victims (even those initially perceived as victims) because they don't want to discourage other victims from coming forward.
Thirdly, perjury is difficult to prove for thibgs like this (much easier when someone lies about their age or where they were despite being on CCTV). Despite a guilty verdict, it is still only the word of another person.

Similarly, a charge of making a false statement falls into the same category.

 

[Timmah]

 

[Captain Apollo]

Dylan Walker has been stood down by the NRL - https://www.nrl.com/news/2019/03/01/manly-accept-nrl-decision-to-stand-down-dylan-walker/

 

[Timmah]

 

[azza29]

Dylan Walker has been stood down by the NRL - https://www.nrl.com/news/2019/03/01/manly-accept-nrl-decision-to-stand-down-dylan-walker/

Good. If Manly had any brains they would have done this weeks ago. Just goes to show the clubs have too much self-interest to make these calls in the interests of the broader game.

 

[firechild]

Good. If Manly had any brains they would have done this weeks ago. Just goes to show the clubs have too much self-interest to make these calls in the interests of the broader game.

Bullshit. The clubs have a responsibility to their players first. How would you feel if your employer shafted you like that?

 

[azza29]

Bullshit. The clubs have a responsibility to their players first. How would you feel if your employer shafted you like that?

If I was in the same circumstances as Walker I suspect I would either lose my job, or in a best case scenario be asked to take leave without pay. Clubs treating players with kid gloves doesn't seem to have paid dividends for them.

 

[Mick Benson]

Ok, so now we have a precedent for the CEO's call on an offence carrying 5 years maximum. That should open up some additional discussions about 'consistency' in future.

 

[gerg]

Ok, so now we have a precedent for the CEO's call on an offence carrying 5 years maximum. That should open up some additional discussions about 'consistency' in future.

They made it pretty clear at yesterday's press conference that incidents of a 'violent' nature would not be tolerated. They even chose to include 'violence directed at women' so today's announcement should really come as no surprise.

 

[Mick Benson]

They made it pretty clear at yesterday's press conference that incidents of a 'violent' nature would not be tolerated. They even chose to include 'violence directed at women' so today's announcement should really come as no surprise.

Yeah, I'm not surprised, I just think they make it difficult for themselves with this 'policy on the run' business.

 

[firechild]

If I was in the same circumstances as Walker I suspect I would either lose my job, or in a best case scenario be asked to take leave without pay. Clubs treating players with kid gloves doesn't seem to have paid dividends for them.

If you were terminated and subsequently found not guilty, you'd have a great case for wrongful dismissal. The premise of innocent until proven guilty actually means something. Clubs are right to back their players and I would expect my employer to do that as well. If you don't expect your employer to do the same either you think little of them or of yourself.

 

[azza29]

If you were terminated and subsequently found not guilty, you'd have a great case for wrongful dismissal. The premise of innocent until proven guilty actually means something. Clubs are right to back their players and I would expect my employer to do that as well. If you don't expect your employer to do the same either you think little of them or of yourself.

Sadly these rules don’t apply if you work for a big company these days, most will cave in to the inevitable social media pressure if one of their employees is accused of certain kinds of wrongdoing.

But to the topic at hand, Walker is still being paid and retains his job, he just won’t be playing any games until his court case is resolved. Could even argue that Manly would be doing the right thing by him in keeping him out of the spotlight while this is going on.

 

[Last Week]

People seem to have this idea that because in criminal law people are 'innocent until proven guilty', that this applies to all parts of life. It doesn't.

For example, take the Jarryd Hayne case in the US. There was not enough evidence to charge him, let alone prove him guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt. However, he seems to have a fair chance of losing his civil case against him. That's because the burden of proof is determined on the balance of probabilities. Which is what pretty much every accusation in life is based on, except in a criminal court.

The NRL for example don't need as much evidence/proof as the courts or police to form an opinion on an accusation.

Pretty much everyone in this thread would do themselves a favour by trying to understand the differences between the two burden of proofs and how/when they are applied.

 

[AJB1102]

Just be careful. 7 billion people on this planet, f**k having to leave your fate up to 12 of them who couldn't dodge jury duty.

 

[firechild]

People seem to have this idea that because in criminal law people are 'innocent until proven guilty', that this applies to all parts of life. It doesn't.

For example, take the Jarryd Hayne case in the US. There was not enough evidence to charge him, let alone prove him guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt. However, he seems to have a fair chance of losing his civil case against him. That's because the burden of proof is determined on the balance of probabilities. Which is what pretty much every accusation in life is based on, except in a criminal court.

The NRL for example don't need as much evidence/proof as the courts or police to form an opinion on an accusation.

Pretty much everyone in this thread would do themselves a favour by trying to understand the differences between the two burden of proofs and how/when they are applied.

Not forgetting that at all. The NRL haven't analysed any evidence in the way that a court would in either a civil or criminal trial so they're not in a position to be making judgement on innocence or guilt, nor are they making any claim to.
If a person was found not guilty in a criminal trial but found liable for damages in a civil trial, I don't think too many people would have issue with the NRL taking action and no doubt the law would see it the same way with respect to contracts.

 

[Delboy]

Most employees sign a Terms of Employment contract which covers a termination/suspension clause if by your actions the company/employer is brought into disrepute etc. This always at the discretion of the employer, would be surprising if NRL contracts did not include similar.

That would in some way preclude some of the possible legal action by the employee/player.

 

[AlwaysGreen]

People seem to have this idea that because in criminal law people are 'innocent until proven guilty', that this applies to all parts of life. It doesn't.

For example, take the Jarryd Hayne case in the US. There was not enough evidence to charge him, let alone prove him guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt. However, he seems to have a fair chance of losing his civil case against him. That's because the burden of proof is determined on the balance of probabilities. Which is what pretty much every accusation in life is based on, except in a criminal court.

The NRL for example don't need as much evidence/proof as the courts or police to form an opinion on an accusation.

Pretty much everyone in this thread would do themselves a favour by trying to understand the differences between the two burden of proofs and how/when they are applied.

This post is all lies - try watching Suits before posting about legal stuff next time.

 

[firechild]

Most employees sign a Terms of Employment contract which covers a termination/suspension clause if by your actions the company/employer is brought into disrepute etc. This always at the discretion of the employer, would be surprising if NRL contracts did not include similar.

That would in some way preclude some of the possible legal action by the employee/player.

"By your actions" is key here. If you were falsely accused then your actions have not brought the company into desrepute. Therefore legal action would not be precluded.