Greg Bird charged with violent attack

[gunnamatta bay]

http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,8659,24683329-23214,00.html

 

[Dave Q]

John Stratton QC explains a few things for us on his website 'Criminal Law Survival Kit' (Highly reccomended).

Spouses.
Under the Evidence Act in criminal proceedings a spouse, de facto, parent or child is not compellable as a witness for the prosecution if the court holds that

• giving evidence is likely to cause harm to the person or the relationship and
• the harm outweighs the desirability of the evidence being given (s. 18).

The relevant period is the time the witness is giving evidence, overruling Smiles (1993) 30 NSWLR 248, 67 A Crim R 234.A spouse is compellable in an offence of domestic violence: s. 104 Criminal Procedure Act.
Section 18 of the Evidence Act applies to conversations between spouses which take place before the Evidence Act came into effect: Glassby (2000) 115 A Crim R 465.
If a witness is a person who has the right to make a claim for this privilege, the court is required to satisfy itself that the witness is aware of the effect of the provision: s. 18 (4) Evidence Act.
Any objection is to be heard and determined in the absence of the jury: s. 18(5) Evidence Act.
The prosecution cannot comment on the making of an objection or the failure of the witness to give evidence: s. 18(8) Evidence Act.

Was Milligan a spouse or defacto? Hmmmm.

 

[Eskimo Sharkie]

I think it is as good as given that Bird will never play in the Sharks' colours again. With the case adjourned until April, we are going to be well into season 2009 and a man short on our roster. If he is convicted, which is likely given that reckless wounding is a difficult charge to defend, he will be sacked anyway. The club is going to better off letting him go now so that we have time to be able to sign someone else.

Can't say I like the allegations surfacing about Zappia. It may all be a storm in a teacup but I would hate to be one of our sponsors reading about this. Does not sound good.

 

[Vossy]

There wont be jury, its in the Local Court.
The five month delay is due to finding the available court time. A three day hearing at the Downing Centre is not available at a few weeks notice. You also have the three week Christmas period closure and being spring/summer crime increases as well.

Its annoying but nothing can be done about it.

always have to do it the hard way aye...:crazy:

 

[cronullashark]

John Stratton QC explains a few things for us on his website 'Criminal Law Survival Kit' (Highly reccomended).

Spouses.
Under the Evidence Act in criminal proceedings a spouse, de facto, parent or child is not compellable as a witness for the prosecution if the court holds that

• giving evidence is likely to cause harm to the person or the relationship and
• the harm outweighs the desirability of the evidence being given (s. 18).

The relevant period is the time the witness is giving evidence, overruling Smiles (1993) 30 NSWLR 248, 67 A Crim R 234.A spouse is compellable in an offence of domestic violence: s. 104 Criminal Procedure Act.
Section 18 of the Evidence Act applies to conversations between spouses which take place before the Evidence Act came into effect: Glassby (2000) 115 A Crim R 465.
If a witness is a person who has the right to make a claim for this privilege, the court is required to satisfy itself that the witness is aware of the effect of the provision: s. 18 (4) Evidence Act.
Any objection is to be heard and determined in the absence of the jury: s. 18(5) Evidence Act.
The prosecution cannot comment on the making of an objection or the failure of the witness to give evidence: s. 18(8) Evidence Act.

Was Milligan a spouse or defacto? Hmmmm.

definately de facto

 

[Dave Q]

definately de facto

Then maybe this is relevent:-

EVIDENCE ACT 1995 - SECT 18

Compellability of spouses and others in criminal proceedings generally
18 Compellability of spouses and others in criminal proceedings generally

(1) This section applies only in a criminal proceeding.​

(2) A person who, when required to give evidence, is the spouse, de facto spouse, parent or child of a defendant may object to being required:

(a) to give evidence, or​

(b) to give evidence of a communication between the person and the defendant,​

as a witness for the prosecution.​

(3) The objection is to be made before the person gives the evidence or as soon as practicable after the person becomes aware of the right so to object, whichever is the later.​

(4) If it appears to the court that a person may have a right to make an objection under this section, the court is to satisfy itself that the person is aware of the effect of this section as it may apply to the person.​

(5) If there is a jury, the court is to hear and determine any objection under this section in the absence of the jury.​

(6) A person who makes an objection under this section to giving evidence or giving evidence of a communication must not be required to give the evidence if the court finds that:

(a) there is a likelihood that harm would or might be caused (whether directly or indirectly) to the person, or to the relationship between the person and the defendant, if the person gives the evidence, and​

(b) the nature and extent of that harm outweighs the desirability of having the evidence given.​

(7) Without limiting the matters that may be taken into account by the court for the purposes of subsection (6), it must take into account the following:

(a) the nature and gravity of the offence for which the defendant is being prosecuted,​

(b) the substance and importance of any evidence that the person might give and the weight that is likely to be attached to it,​

(c) whether any other evidence concerning the matters to which the evidence of the person would relate is reasonably available to the prosecutor,​

(d) the nature of the relationship between the defendant and the person,​

(e) whether, in giving the evidence, the person would have to disclose matter that was received by the person in confidence from the defendant.​

(8) If an objection under this section has been determined, the prosecutor may not comment on:

(a) the objection, or​

(b) the decision of the court in relation to the objection, or​

(c) the failure of the person to give evidence.​

 

[Surely]

The list includes Ricky & Zaps, sounds like a fishing expedition.



http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,27574,24683331-5006009,00.html

Maybe the lightbulb has switched on for a few of you now, the ones who can't understand why bird didn't talk to stuart or zappia.

 

[blacktip-reefy]

Ya reckon Surely. I think you are giving them too much credit.
Try a stick figure drawing.

 

[Dave Q]

If she is not called by the defence, there may be a presumption that her evidence will not assist him.

If she is later called or subpoenaed, compelled to give evidence and trys to tell porkies on the stand, the prosecutor will nail her to the cross and she will have Birdy buying a new toothbrush in ten minutes.

I read somewhere that he said that he is tired of it all. This is a pretty typical response to being prosecuted.

As if the cops are going to say:

"Yeah its all a bit of a waste of time mate, youve said youre sorry for being accused now you can go on your way"

I bet Martene is keeping a scrapbook.

If Zaps has belted an employee, he should be sacked and charged immediately.

Its a bit tough to defend a club when you yourself are under a cloud.

From an outsiders perspective, the sharks is a pretty interesting club.

 

[Miller was a legend]

She is not likely to want to give a statement or evidence if she was injured in what could legally be construde as an attempted assault on the person who has been accused and charged. She would have been charged and deported would she not, given that such a charge would result in a breach of her visa. Her studies to become a lawyer would also take a slide. Funny thing is, why is Birds life and career less important? Anyway I guess it would have been a tough call to determine who should take responsibility as both have a lot to lose. Better to blame a mate hey.

 

[Dave Q]

If she doesnt front or otherwise doesnt give evidence:-

EVIDENCE ACT 1995 - SECT 20

Comment on failure to give evidence
(1) This section applies only in a criminal proceeding for an indictable offence.
(2) The judge or any party (other than the prosecutor) may comment on a failure of the defendant to give evidence. However, unless the comment is made by another defendant in the proceeding, the comment must not suggest that the defendant failed to give evidence because the defendant was, or believed that he or she was, guilty of the offence concerned.
(3) The judge or any party (other than the prosecutor) may comment on a failure to give evidence by a person who, at the time of the failure, was:
(a) the defendant's spouse or de facto spouse; or
(b) a parent or child of the defendant.

Pity the mate didnt take the rap, spose Bird thinks hes not a mate any longer.

Id hate to be his enemy.

 

[Miller was a legend]

If she doesnt front or otherwise doesnt give evidence:-

EVIDENCE ACT 1995 - SECT 20

Comment on failure to give evidence
(1) This section applies only in a criminal proceeding for an indictable offence.
(2) The judge or any party (other than the prosecutor) may comment on a failure of the defendant to give evidence. However, unless the comment is made by another defendant in the proceeding, the comment must not suggest that the defendant failed to give evidence because the defendant was, or believed that he or she was, guilty of the offence concerned.
(3) The judge or any party (other than the prosecutor) may comment on a failure to give evidence by a person who, at the time of the failure, was:
(a) the defendant's spouse or de facto spouse; or
(b) a parent or child of the defendant.

Pity the mate didnt take the rap, spose Bird thinks hes not a mate any longer.

Id hate to be his enemy.

You got that right Dave!

 

[Surely]

Ya reckon Surely. I think you are giving them too much credit.
Try a stick figure drawing.

You're right, matlocks still concerned about the defactos legal position.

 

[Dave Q]

You got that right Dave!

If this passage of play turns about to be true, he should be run out of town.

 

[spider]

Well they have put themselves on moral high ground if that is what they are saying. better be no slip ups in the media from them in the future when trying to control a bad situation, especially with all the talk of the company going public etc.

Through an accident, in which the adults sorted it out. Which part dont you understand? How or why the accident happened is nobodies business or everybodies, if the adults chose.

who cares. Its nobodys business. They have sorted it out.


She wil lsay it was an accident & that will be it.

lol - an accident, ok

serious eye injury, which she wont admit too, so who did it????

was there a grassy knoll near his place......or is there a precedent for 'adult rectification'

 

[gunnamatta bay]

as a shireite I must say there is evidence of 'tension' in god's country. everywhere I go people are talking about bird. forget the wars and economic woes this is the big issue. there is a pall of gloom and much hand wrenching. oh well I going down to sharkies to make my weekly contribution to the 'sinking' fund.

http://www.leaguehq.com.au/news/news/bird-rethinks-decision-to-go/2008/11/21/1226770739427.html

Tensions grow in Shire as Bird rethinks decision to go

Andrew Webster | November 22, 2008

The Greg Bird saga will not go away. After indicating he was prepared to pick up the pieces of his career in England, the sidelined Sharks star has now told his management he "won't walk away" from his lucrative deal - but could ask for compensation to do so.
As reported in the Herald yesterday, Bird is devastated that his court case into serious assault charges relating to an incident involving American girlfriend Katie Milligan has been adjourned to April 27.
After telling his management that he was prepared to resurrect his career in England, overnight several Super League clubs registered their interest.
But Bird's agent, Gavin Orr, said the shattered Australian and NSW player had had time to reflect on the court decision. He is now adamant he won't be walking out on his four-year deal with the Sharks.
"He is prepared to dig in," Orr said last night. "He was very upset after the court case. In the cold light of day, he says he is not prepared to just walk away from a four-year deal when nothing has been proven yet."
Asked if Bird would seek a payout from the club, Orr replied: "He won't walk away from a contract of that size without compensation."
Bird is paid $350,000 a year.
Sharks chief executive Tony Zappia refused to be drawn on what course of action his board might take over the festering situation, saying he wanted to distance himself from the process because he is a witness in the case. Zappia said Bird had discussed details of the alleged incident with him while Milligan was in hospital after being allegedly hit with a glass.
Zappia also said there had been no resolution over a dispute between the club and a female employee, who has levelled assault allegations against the CEO. Mediation between the two parties took place, and Zappia said a resolution was expected on Monday.
There has been talk that Bird and Orr were orchestrating a campaign against Zappia - a suggestion Orr flatly rejected. It is understood Zappia asked Orr as much during a meeting hours after Bird's court appearance on Thursday. "I was told about it two months after anything was supposed to have occurred," Orr said. "It has not come from me."

 

[Inferno]

Smart move from Bird, no fuggen way we will be able to afford to give him a golden handshake.

 

[Surely]

So Bird did talk to zappia, and now zappia is a prosecution witness, who would have thought :roll:

 

[gunnamatta bay]

if bird is a friend of the female employee allegedly assaulted by zaps and she complained to bird first asap after the incident then if zaps is charged with assault then bird would be a witness for the prosecution as he was first person to become aware of the alleged incident outside the group who actually witnessed it. :sarcasm:

 

[Coastal Shark]

So Bird did talk to zappia, and now zappia is a prosecution witness, who would have thought :roll:

But wasnt one of the reasons for standing Bird down was that he wouldn't talk to the club?