Greg Bird charged with violent attack

[lolesi]

Therefore bird back on deck, great news.

You can still be charged even if the victim refuses to either:
1) make a statement or
2) claim it was an accident or misunderstanding

Which is seen quite commonly in domestic violence cases, as alot of the time instances such as intimidation or fear of retribution etc are present.

 

[Miller was a legend]

You can still be charged even if the victim refuses to either:
1) make a statement or
2) claim it was an accident or misunderstanding

Which is seen quite commonly in domestic violence cases, as alot of the time instances such as intimidation or fear of retribution etc are present.

100% correct

 

[PJ]

Re Carney he was caught out, again, and was given an option to undergo some remediation from the club which he declined.

They saw no other option but to terminate his contract. Who knows if they hadn't maybe he would be in a similar position to Bird and his club would be being blamed for not acting sooner.

I also think where a player is sacked for a public behaviour issue the NRL should prevent them from playing for another club for a certain amount of time. Do you think Newcastle would be happy Seu Seu is playing for the Sharks when he could be filling in for them? Or that Tilse was immediately picked up? Why should a club that has done the right thing aid one of their competitors.

What if the charges are dropped and the SHarks sack him. Do you think another club should be able to sign him?

 

[PJ]

Shame Bird didnt

yes, it is a big shame for him, the victim, Sharks fans and the game in general.

IMO it will be a bigger shame if it is brushed under the carpet.

 

[Dave Q]

Dave, you should stop now you are making a fool out of yourself by arguing with Spider about something you have very little knowledge about other than internet searches.

There was more than enough evidence to charge Bird. The points Spider correctly listed is the majority of the evidence that was used and none of it, I repeat none of it is 'hearsay'. Evidence can be either direct or circumstancial (both are admissable). At the moment a lot of the case is circumstancial against Bird. Obviously the key factor is the girls statement.

Of course he is considered innocent until proven guilty. The prosecution will have to reach prima facie (you can look that up) at trial before the defence has to say a word.

Who said anything about charging Bird, I was referring to his guilt or innocence.

How are the Police proving the elements of the offence? Wheres the brief? Has it been done yet? Do you know whats in it? Have you read it?

Spider was giving us hearsay evidence. He was referring to things said by others.

And unless you and I see the statements we dont actually know whether or not the Police are relying on hearsay like you seem to be.

How do you know if they have a prima facie case?

Too many assumptions here.

The only thing you got right is the presumption of innocence, but hes going to struggle to get that with a jury with all of this publicity.

I suggest you find a lawyer son, get yourself a real good one.

 

[shintaro]

Hope that's the truth...

absolutely rock solid ....

 

[myanonymoususername]

Just said on the news (9) that Bird's manager has been visiting Katie Milligan in hospital. Negotiations underway? Getting stories straight? Police concerned that he is influencing her evidence, Cronulla CEO apparently sees no problem with it.

My take - very dodgy.

If I was the police I'd be getting "Bird or anyone associated with him or the Cronulla club in any way" injuncted from contacting her in any way.

If Bird is not guilty of what he's alleged to have done, he and his associates are certainly not acting like it.

 

[VictorTheViking]

Re Carney he was caught out, again, and was given an option to undergo some remediation from the club which he declined.

They saw no other option but to terminate his contract. Who knows if they hadn't maybe he would be in a similar position to Bird and his club would be being blamed for not acting sooner.

I also think where a player is sacked for a public behaviour issue the NRL should prevent them from playing for another club for a certain amount of time. Do you think Newcastle would be happy Seu Seu is playing for the Sharks when he could be filling in for them? Or that Tilse was immediately picked up? Why should a club that has done the right thing aid one of their competitors.

What if the charges are dropped and the SHarks sack him. Do you think another club should be able to sign him?

Tilse wasnt immediately picked up, he was deregistered for 12 months if im not mistaken, lets not forget that the tilse incident and this one have very few similarities.

As far as im concerned if (and I said if) he is convicted, he should be deregistered aswell (thats if he isnt given time for it)

 

[Miller was a legend]

I understand where your coming from Dave, however the statements referred to at Sutherland court were not hearsay evidence. Hearsay evidence is when someone says that someone else told them something was said or done. The statements given by rersidents of Birds apartments are not hearsay. They go direct to the facts that certain things were said / heard and that noone else was present at the property based upon their vision of the open unit after Bird and Katie left. The case at this stage has been based upon this evidence before a statement from the victim so for a court to accept those statements and adjourn the case to the Downing Centre, there is sufficient evidence to suggest an assault took place. Now it has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

 

[Inferno]

absolutely rock solid ....

Wasn't doubting you shint, I was talking about the claim that it actually was an accident.

 

[PJ]

Victor if he is found guilty being de-registered will be the least of his problems, and something the NRL probably wouldn't have to worry about either.

I stand corrected on Tilse but the fact remains players get sacked for something public at one club and are soon playing against their old team. Only ones that suffer are the club that did the right thing by sacking them.

 

[Inferno]

in recent times Sargent, Seymour, Misi, Costigan and Sione have been sacked and snapped up without being deregistered and that doesn't even include the ones who headed over to the ESL

 

[spider]

I suppose you were there Spides. A eye-witness to the events of the incident.

What did you see there mate? Blood where? Glass where?

The Police would like to talk to you, you'd better go down to the cop shop and make a statement.

the police released the info to the media dave

Statements mean crap unless they are actually tested, thats why we have a court in the first place.

that bow is going to break if you draw back any further

As for the veracity of statements enjoy:

EVIDENCE ACT 1995 - SECT 59

The hearsay rule--exclusion of hearsay evidence
(1) Evidence of a previous representation made by a person is not admissible to prove the existence of a fact that the person intended to assert by the representation.
(2) Such a fact is in this Part referred to as an asserted fact .
(3) Subsection (1) does not apply to evidence of a representation contained in a certificate or other document given or made under regulations made under an Act other than this Act to the extent to which the regulations provide that the certificate or other document has evidentiary effect.
Note: Specific exceptions to the hearsay rule are as follows:
* evidence relevant for a non‑hearsay purpose (section 60);
* first‑hand hearsay:
-- civil proceedings, if the maker of the representation is unavailable (section 63) or available (section 64);
-- criminal proceedings, if the maker of the representation is unavailable (section 65) or available (section 66);
* business records (section 69);
* tags and labels (section 70);
* telecommunications (section 71);
* contemporaneous statements about a person's health etc. (section 72);
* marriage, family history or family relationships (section 73);
* public or general rights (section 74);
* use of evidence in interlocutory proceedings (section 75);
* admissions (section 81);
* representations about employment or authority (subsection 87(2));
* exceptions to the rule excluding evidence of judgments and convictions (subsection 92(3));
* character of and expert opinion about accused persons (sections 110 and 111).
Other provisions of this Act, or of other laws, may operate as further exceptions.

He's entitled to be considered as innocent until he pleads or is found guilty.

The only reason to stand him down is if his time in remand whilst awaiting bail interefered with his training.

The court has thrown out matters where it has found that the defendant cant get a fair trial.

Maybe thats Birdy's plan B?!

did you see section 60 dave - the one that mentions evidence?

 

[STSAE]

I think the difference here is that Carney didn't deny it. Not denying it is as good as an admission. Bird is maintaining his innocence (and I am not saying I believe him) and hence Sticky cannot say anything as the Club Coach until the allegation has been proven as he could open the Club up to legal action if Bird is found not guilty.

I am sure sticky's comments will be very different if Bird is found guilty of this.

If Carney was a rumour why did they sack him? They investigated it and found it was true. carney did not deny it, to his credit.

I hear what your saying mate and agree it would be difficult for pRicky in his position.

Where I reckon pRick has made a mistake is commenting on Carneys situation the way he did. It makes his current understandable stance look hypocritical in my view. Maybe its a lesson in staying out of the politics in footy and just coach, for all coaches???

I gather Carney was sacked cos of repeatedly breaking the clubs code of conduct which is a standard in all NRL contracts from what I know. As far as I know Carney never denied or admitted to what was reported to have allegedly occured.

See my problem at the time was the NRL stance. Threatening to de-register a player who wasnt even charged with a criime, i was astounded theyd threaten that. But now they have and made such noises like court action and banning from playing NRL footy, well whats the protocol here????

I see a real mess for all involved. And im sorry to say you fans may cop some heat, which is wrong, but should be expected unfortunatley.

:sarcasm::sarcasm:

 

[STSAE]

Not at all STSAE, and I am not trying to deflect.

I hope they hang him out to dry.

It was your line about deflecting blame instead of putting your hands up to things, weak excuses etc,etc that led me to think of Willie, who is never to blame for any of the stuff he has been involved in, though admittedly nowhere near as bad as this.

Thats bull mate.

Tell me once Mason did that, the blame game, especially at my club???

He admitted doing a weewee, with your new recruit Double Steamer ironically.

He admitted to, golly gosh gee wizz, smoking a ciggy.:crazy:

He admitted to signing Fitzys name, master forgery.

And thats IT. Anything else has been rumour, from, ahem, that rag we mentioned.

The whole ADHD was an effort by Noad to paint the Boggs in a nice caring new age light, helping the modern gimp. Mason himself said that embaressed him ever having to reveal something like that.

The guys a gimp I will grant that, but his name shouldnt even be mentioned near this case/allegation, its garbage.


Mate I understand you blokes are hurting, it feels like the worlds against youse, I dig.

Im not having a go personally at your club. I stated this is a culture of cover up that goes beyond 1 club or 1 code, its a WORLDWIDE problem.

Its time we stopped making excuses for these antisocial arseholes and make sure they know it wont happen again. Maybe then these so called adaults will act like adaults.

:sarcasm::sarcasm:

 

[Sheros los Deros]

I don't want Bird playing for the club if any of the allegations turn out to be true. Not only this current charge, but the summons for a previous incident. If Bird is playing for the club, and he is implicated in violence against women, how can I reconcile my support of that club?

This debacle is a slight on the name of the great players who have represented the Sharks, on the field and in the community.

 

[Alan Shore]

Just said on the news (9) that Bird's manager has been visiting Katie Milligan in hospital. Negotiations underway? Getting stories straight? Police concerned that he is influencing her evidence, Cronulla CEO apparently sees no problem with it.

My take - very dodgy.

If I was the police I'd be getting "Bird or anyone associated with him or the Cronulla club in any way" injuncted from contacting her in any way.

If Bird is not guilty of what he's alleged to have done, he and his associates are certainly not acting like it.

Well I think the police got some sort of temporary AVO on Bird so he can't go near Milligan, but they can't stop his manager or club officials from attempting to visit her - it would be up to her to reject their request for a visit and ignore them.

Who is Bird's manager - if he manages to clean this up, he would be a genius.

 

[STSAE]

Re Carney he was caught out, again, and was given an option to undergo some remediation from the club which he declined.

They saw no other option but to terminate his contract. Who knows if they hadn't maybe he would be in a similar position to Bird and his club would be being blamed for not acting sooner.

I also think where a player is sacked for a public behaviour issue the NRL should prevent them from playing for another club for a certain amount of time. Do you think Newcastle would be happy Seu Seu is playing for the Sharks when he could be filling in for them? Or that Tilse was immediately picked up? Why should a club that has done the right thing aid one of their competitors.

What if the charges are dropped and the SHarks sack him. Do you think another club should be able to sign him?

Thats a very good post mate, a prime example of the mess that will result here.

The Faiders themselves have 2 players, Costigan and Tilse, who were sacked for acts very similar to Toad Carneys actually Im sure the law was involved in each case. Then when the sack Carney, who wasnt actually charged with an offence at the time, they didnt want him to play for another NRL team. The NRL agreed amazingly.

Now where does that leave this case???? Turds been charged but what if hes not guilty??? Will he still be de-registered??? Why cant another club sign him then??? Well the NewsRL have set a precedence in my view......:crazy:.

Can of worms I tells ya.

:sarcasm::sarcasm:

 

[shintaro]

Wasn't doubting you shint, I was talking about the claim that it actually was an accident.

Who would know.... I've never had an accident where my beer glass hit some one in the face. I might have dropped a few but they've all fallen straight down.

 

[Sheros los Deros]

I've also heard of women with mental health problems self harming themselves, but never cutting their eyes out and fracturing their eye sockets