Greg Bird charged with violent attack

[carcharias]

Youre another prime boofhead, prone to criticisng things and people you dont and could never hope to understand.

Sort of person who sees humour in the suffering of others.

A splatted mosquito has a greater insight into human nature than you.

Makes me wish I wasnt from the shire.

ohh that hurt.

ya poo poo head.

 

[Dave Q]

That's not true Dave, it's not up to the lawyer to make up their mind one way or the other. As long as their client does not expressly say they have committed the crime, they are able to represent them as not guilty.

If a client initially confess guilt but later decide to plea not guilty their barrister has the option of returning the brief and refusing to act, or if they wish to retain the brief they can still act for their client through the means of a frozen defence where by they can defend their client on the grounds of a mistake of law, or that there is not enough evidence to convict, though they cannot claim another has committed the crime, or claim a case inconsistent with the confession.

A lawyer is not entitled to mislead the court or enter a false plea.

A lawyer is perfectly entitled to form their own view as to the guilt or innocence of their client at any time in the proceedings and having done so, if it conflicts with the client's instructions, the lawyer can withdraw their instructions.

You can put the prosecution to proof and all that, and split hairs about techincalities....and end up like Bird.

If I was a lawyer who was defending a criminal law client and they want to defend a matter, I need comprehensive instructions and I want evidence.

Why put the cops, victims, witnesses and the courts through all the bother and expense of running something that has no legs?

Some vague and hazy claim of 'I didnt do it" without a proper explanation well, that can be another lawyers problem.

This is the real world.

 

[Dave Q]

Yes "forming the view" is what the courts do (not the lawyers) otherwise what's the point of the whole thing.

Lawyers form views all the time!

Just back to Feins interesting barristorial comment for a second.

If a client made fulls admissions as to the crime, and you entered a plea of not guilty and ran the case regardless, that could be seen as unethical.

 

[Dave Q]

Millers, you dont listen very well do you. Obviously dont read very well either. Because if you want to go back over the pages you would see the following. Yes, I was WRONG about the outcome of the assault. BUT there is no way I or anyone else could have known what sort of defence his team was going to make. I expected Birds team to be cross examining the witnesses about what they saw/heard etc.

Bird was convicted on a circumstancial case, which doesnt happen very often. Not having a victim testimony or any direct witnesses are pretty big holes in a case. I did think Bird would beat the assault wrap. BUT I did not want him to. Big difference! Ive never said he was innocent. I knew he was guilty from day one and he got what he deserved. Are we clear now Millers!!

As for his defence IMO Birds team fugged up. They had two choices. Firstly, fully cooperate, make full admissions, plead guilty, get a discount, possibly try and use alcohol/psychological state as mitigating factors. Or secondly, fight it all the way, argue and cross examine everything in the prosecution case. But they rolled the dice and did neither of these things and now Bird is looking at a good stint in the slammer. Why do you think Bird and his team have all been so shocked at the outcome and sentence? Good lawyers know whats going to happen, hence the reason why they offer plea deals to try and get something better for their clients. I guarantee you had they taken the first option Bird wouldnt be in the position he is in now. Might even still have a contract with the sharks.

As for any other comment/insight/criticisms I made on the processes, police, court etc. Again as Ive said I made this based on occupational experience. Something Millers, you have nothing of. Your go, is to just criticise others without actually offering anything yourself.

As for Dave Q, he may seem a little eratic at times (no offence Dave) but he is actually quite accurate with his general comments about the legal processes.

Yes, Its Ok to stick your head in the sand....provided that you know what are the possible unpalatable consequences are.

What about sentence at the Dizzo? Parker Directive?!!

 

[samshark]

Lawyers form views all the time!

Just back to Feins interesting barristorial comment for a second.

If a client made fulls admissions as to the crime, and you entered a plea of not guilty and ran the case regardless, that could be seen as unethical.

Dave, that happens all the time.

Since when are defence lawyers seen as ethical anyway. Fugg me, most are scum. Personally, I dont know how they sleep at night.

 

[samshark]

What about sentence at the Dizzo? Parker Directive?!!

Come again?? Not sure what you are talking about there.

On a side note. I know of a case that finished last week. Guy was initially charged with murder but went down to manslaughter and he got five years. Interesting to compare this to Bird.

 

[millersnose]

Millers, you dont listen very well do you. Obviously dont read very well either. Because if you want to go back over the pages you would see the following. Yes, I was WRONG about the outcome of the assault. BUT there is no way I or anyone else could have known what sort of defence his team was going to make. I expected Birds team to be cross examining the witnesses about what they saw/heard etc.

Bird was convicted on a circumstancial case, which doesnt happen very often. Not having a victim testimony or any direct witnesses are pretty big holes in a case. I did think Bird would beat the assault wrap. BUT I did not want him to. Big difference! Ive never said he was innocent. I knew he was guilty from day one and he got what he deserved. Are we clear now Millers!!

out of deference for the pm you sent me which i found compelling and genuine i wont retaliate to this portion of your post

As for his defence IMO Birds team fugged up.

samshark

you do not know this

They had two choices. Firstly, fully cooperate, make full admissions, plead guilty, get a discount, possibly try and use alcohol/psychological state as mitigating factors. Or secondly, fight it all the way, argue and cross examine everything in the prosecution case. But they rolled the dice and did neither of these things and now Bird is looking at a good stint in the slammer. Why do you think Bird and his team have all been so shocked at the outcome and sentence?

i dont beleive for a moment they were

it was a forgone conclusion as far as i am concerned and as far as the wider public, not looking at this through blue black and whate glasses, were concerned also

Good lawyers know whats going to happen, hence the reason why they offer plea deals to try and get something better for their clients. I guarantee you had they taken the first option Bird wouldnt be in the position he is in now. Might even still have a contract with the sharks.

this is nonsense

good lawyers, especially defence lawyers, loose cases

i take exception to your insistance that these men did not do the best job with what they had

i declare you had no knowledge of the events or the depth of the evidence which led you to make predicitions which you propbably wouldnt have if it werent for a sharks player being involved

As for any other comment/insight/criticisms I made on the processes, police, court etc. Again as Ive said I made this based on occupational experience. Something Millers, you have nothing of. Your go, is to just criticise others without actually offering anything yourself.

forums are about people putting up 'opinions' and copping criticisms for them

i made predictions as well on this case

though you claim expertise - certainly I have none nor do I claim to have any such expertise - it was I who was correct

As for Dave Q, he may seem a little eratic at times (no offence Dave) but he is actually quite accurate with his general comments about the legal processes.

now this i take exception to

daveq is dishonest - go on - claim he isnt

i will leave you alone if you claim he is dishonest or do not accept this challenge

if you claim he is being honest then i will know you are deliberately being dishonest yourself - and so will 95 per cent of people following this thread

 

[samshark]

out of deference for the pm you sent me which i found compelling and genuine i wont retaliate to this portion of your post



samshark

you do not know this

Thats why I said IMO


i dont beleive for a moment they were

Well, I know they were and that is coming from people inside the court room

it was a forgone conclusion as far as i am concerned and as far as the wider public, not looking at this through blue black and whate glasses, were concerned also




this is nonsense

good lawyers, especially defence lawyers, loose cases

i take exception to your insistance that these men did not do the best job with what they had

We can agree to disagree

i declare you had no knowledge of the events or the depth of the evidence which led you to make predicitions which you propbably wouldnt have if it werent for a sharks player being involved

Not true and by my PM you should know this



forums are about people putting up 'opinions' and copping criticisms for them

Yes, I can handle that

i made predictions as well on this case

though you claim expertise - certainly I have none nor do I claim to have any such expertise - it was I who was correct

Well done, but did you actually predict he would be found guilty or that he was guilty. I cant remember.

now this i take exception to

daveq is dishonest - go on - claim he isnt

Honest/dishonest??? Never said he was either. Just said some of his insight into the legal works is accurate. I am not getting into a whole debate about what type of person he is.

i will leave you alone if you claim he is dishonest or do not accept this challenge

if you claim he is being honest then i will know you are deliberately being dishonest yourself - and so will 95 per cent of people following this thread

Anyway, I am done with this Millers. We've said our pieces based on opinion, experience whatever. This thread is getting silly.

 

[millersnose]

fair enough

 

[coolumsharkie]

Waits for Dave Q's summary and closing statement....

 

[carcharias]

Waits for Dave Q's summary and closing statement....

I hope he goes into detail.

 

[Miller was a legend]

This is silly!

 

[Dave Q]

Come again?? Not sure what you are talking about there.

On a side note. I know of a case that finished last week. Guy was initially charged with murder but went down to manslaughter and he got five years. Interesting to compare this to Bird.

A Parker Directive is a warning the District Court gives to Appellants when they have checked the papers and considered the sentance provided by the magistrate and they are thinking of increasing the penalty.

So if this is on the cards, Bird will get the warning from the judge and then he has a choice, to either kick on with the Appeal or make a grab for his toothbrush.

 

[Eion]

A Parker Directive is a warning the District Court gives to Appellants when they have checked the papers and considered the sentance provided by the magistrate and they are thinking of increasing the penalty..

I thought it was a warning to spiderman not to use web on public buildings.

 

[millersnose]

daveq

do you ever tire of posting bullshyte?

 

[Dave Q]

I thought it was a warning to spiderman not to use web on public buildings.

lol

That may apply to Birdman too.

I think its unlikely that he wont do some time, marginally possible that the sentance could be reduced....and he could do the gaol time by way of home detention.

In the meantime, flipping around the world earning cashola is not assisting any case that he could have made in sentancing that he has problems and is seeking treatment.

From day one, even in a defended case, you have to think about what could happen if you go down. Plan B. Cover all bases.

Thats why it was a really good idea that after the incident, he turned up at the game for photographers with beers in hand, a slight dribble and a wide and cheeky grin.

Plenty of remorse and contrition displayed there. Brought tears to the eye.

Pure genius...

A well-run case, Bird doing his best in the difficult circumstances, at least thats what nose would have you believe.

Of course, I still think he doesnt deserve gaol.

SUBPOENA NOT TO GIVE EVIDENCE​

To: Millernose
of: Sharks LU

You are hereby required to attend for the purpose of giving evidence–

(a) before the Court;
(b) of Public Opinion
(c) on whenever it happens

and until you are excused from further attending; but–

(i) You need not comply with this subpoena if it is served on you with dinner.
(ii) you need not attend on any day unless reasonable expenses have been paid or tendered to you. If you are requested to attend Court by the Police or Public Officer the costs of attendance may be reimbursed to you after the date of attendance, if you are lucky.


Parties: Gregory Thomas Bird v The Queen of Australia,
Proceedings: Severity Appeal

Your attendance is required on behalf of the general public.
Contact details: via the Daily Telegraph

This subpoena was issued to you by: mistake

Police Officer /Public Officer/Registrar
Date: today

Notes:
1. A public officer or police officer prosecuting proceedings may sign and issue a subpoena.
2. A registrar may issue a subpoena at the request of any other party to proceedings.
3. If you do not comply with this subpoena you may not be arrested.


Statement for Service of Subpoena:
I . Dave Q of Souths LU
Concreter
I am aged 5 years or more.
I did serve a copy of this subpoena on the witness on 34 / 10 / 2010 by delivering a copy: [state manner of service] via Legaue Unlimited

Signed:.......................................... Witness:…………………………
Name: …………………………… Name:……………………………

 

[millersnose]

I think its unlikely that he wont do some time,

geeze dave

you are a legal genius

what gave it away for you

was the fact that he is ******* sentenced to a ******* jail term?

marginally possible that the sentance could be reduced

perhaps if you learned to spell 'sentence' properly you wouldnt look like such a goose

From day one, even in a defended case, you have to think about what could happen if you go down. Plan B. Cover all bases.

lol

plan C - post drivel endlessly on an internet forum and continually get it wrong

Thats why it was a really good idea that after the incident, he turned up at the game for photographers with beers in hand, a slight dribble and a wide and cheeky grin.

i daresay the judge did not consider this as evidence and neither did the prosecution present it as evidence

this is because you are talking absolute and utter tripe

A well-run case, Bird doing his best in the difficult circumstances, at least thats what nose would have you believe.

i made no comment either way

you are the one who is here bagging legal teams


with utter nonsense

 

[topKing]

after reading this thread i need a cold shower, it really was that exciting.

 

[Dave Q]

Nose, you are at the head of the goose flock.

You are the one who are supporting his lawyers who helped him acieve a lengthy stretch and then you bag the people who feel they or others could have done a better job.

My reference to time, was in relation to the Appeal. You missed that because you find it hard to follow things. The District Court can reduce the sentance to a bond if it wants to...you inbred wheezing dunce.

Bird and his team played the game like they were destined to win. They didnt put much time at all into a possible finding of guilt. Now they are well and truly pantsed and they dont have much to fall back on.

For example, hes going to find it hard to say that he has given up drinking since the event isnt he? Maybe it was a good idea that he stayed off the piss before the hearing and sentancing so he can at least say he has made some changes to his life to help him prevent such an incident occurring again. Well he cant say that now.

As Sam indicated, good lawyers and compliant clients, they try to prepare for all outcomes, not just the one they focus on.

Noses submission on Sentance:

"Mr Bird was so sorry and remorseful that he racked off to UK to earn mega bucks and he continued to carrying on like a drunken lout in exactly the same way as he did the night be got pissed and glassed her"

Nice thoughts nose, no doubt you will get an invite to the prosecutors Xmas party.

 

[millersnose]

Noses submission on Sentance:

"Mr Bird was so sorry and remorseful that he racked off to UK to earn mega bucks and he continued to carrying on like a drunken lout in exactly the same way as he did the night be got pissed and glassed her"

Nice thoughts nose, no doubt you will get an invite to the prosecutors Xmas party.

many times in this thread you have put things in inverted commas and attributed the words to me

this is dishonest and actually contrary to rules here at LU

i give you 12 hours to post a retraction or i will report this activity to the admin of LU