What's new
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Hayne~NFL~RU~Tits~Eels~Dad~Jailed~Mistrial~Jailed 5yrs~Retrial~Jailed~Appeal~Quashed-Sued

King-Gutho94

Coach
Messages
13,133
Well if your believe your innocent you will always try and clear your name.

Even though it's already mud in majority of peoples eyes it's something you wouldn't or don't want on your official record.

How many potential jobs you can't get or do simply because of a criminal or sexual assault offence.

Because I assume once he gets out Jarryd will be joining the real world having to do a hard day's work for minimum pay. Due to earnings from the game whittled away with legal fees and civil suits he won't have much left.
 
Messages
10,195
And sometimes people try to clear their names even when they don't believe they are innocent, for the same reasons.

I wish him well in his future non-football career when the time comes, and nothing wrong with earning a wage as labourer to support your family. Beats being just a retired "brand" I guess.

Perhaps the behavioural lesson will be learned (and can also serve as an example for other younger players), given that it's a big comedown for the guy and his previous ambitions ("NFL dream", Olympics etc).
 

T-Boon

Coach
Messages
15,570
He gets out on parole in May next year, so “clearing his name” might seem an egotistical process, however I assume that the appeal has a lot to do with the civil claim against him launched by the plaintiff.

BTW I don’t really get what the deleted txt messages actually mean. Anyone ?



The court was told the woman had listened to Hayne's prior appeal in 2021 and contacted the social media friend on Facebook the same day.

Hayne, 36, has always maintained his innocence, insisting the sexual encounter was consensual.

'I hope this was worth it for you,' the message read.

'The pain I have endured from all of this is unfathomable. I have never lied. I have never done anything to you and for you to write something to JH about me having him over does not excuse what happened.

'I did not tell you because it was disgusting and confusing for me. If he gets out, you can thank yourself.

'This has been the hardest most painful thing I've ever been through and you can thank yourself for helping a guilty person.'


Hayne's lawyers argue the messages were relevant to the complainant's credibility, demonstrating her contacting a witness in a 'hostile manner'.

They argued the woman 'potentially' had a view to influencing the witness account.

'It also, more importantly, underscores the complainant's attitude to evidence of (the woman), that it did not lend support to her account and that she was angry that the evidence had come to light,' court documents state.

Mr Game said the concealment showed she wanted to get rid of evidence which was 'hurtful' but also because it showed she was 'actually consenting'.

He told the court: 'It's evidence of dishonesty, it also goes to her credibility in a general sense.'

But Crown prosecutor Georgina Wright SC told the court the complainant did not tell the woman about the assault because they were not known well to each other.

'She had never spoken to her and had never met her and said she did not know her at all well,' Ms Wright said.

Ms Wright told the court the complainant had told close friends and family of the assault in the hours after the incident.

But she argued the Facebook message to the social media friend was 'consistent with an expression of frustration with the legal process', denying claims the complainant was concealing messages from police.

Hayne's appeal relies on three grounds – the first being the verdicts were unreasonable and not supported by evidence at trial, secondly, the trial judge erred in ruling the complainant did not have to give evidence about a 2021 interaction with the man she messaged the same day the jury found she was sexually assaulted in 2018, and lastly, that the judge's ruling resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

Hayne was sentenced to four years and nine months behind bars for the charges of digital and oral sexual assault, but he will be eligible for parole in May 2025 due to time already served in custody.

Judgment in the appeal will be issued at a later date.
Yeah. I don’t know.
If the text messages where she said “ I thought you would at least stay the night” didn’t create doubt for the jury this one isn’t helping him.
 

T-Boon

Coach
Messages
15,570
Well if your believe your innocent you will always try and clear your name.

Even though it's already mud in majority of peoples eyes it's something you wouldn't or don't want on your official record.

How many potential jobs you can't get or do simply because of a criminal or sexual assault offence.

Because I assume once he gets out Jarryd will be joining the real world having to do a hard day's work for minimum pay. Due to earnings from the game whittled away with legal fees and civil suits he won't have much left.
Oh yeah. His life is totally ruined and will not recover. She better not have a record of dishonest or anything. Anyone see that Doyalson Servo case. That is a bunch of unacceptable ridiculous laws.
 
Messages
10,195
He gets out on parole in May next year, so “clearing his name” might seem an egotistical process, however I assume that the appeal has a lot to do with the civil claim against him launched by the plaintiff.

BTW I don’t really get what the deleted txt messages actually mean. Anyone ?
Yep.

To me it seems Hayne's team through desperation/last chance have jumped on some deleted text messages not mentioning the otherwise/elsewhere stated lack of consent - despite realising these deleted messages were sent to someone the victim had never met in real life and only knew through social media...?

So hardly surprising imo, she didn't divulge all details to that person - but still had a go at them via text message for helping Hayne's side, after one of the guilty trial verdicts came down?
 
Messages
10,195
More info on doyalson
Clear CCT footage was found, disproving allegations apparently based on recollections and partial CCT footage.

 

Gronk

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
75,090
^^^
Justice Stephen Rothman upheld the appeal on two of the three grounds argued by Hayne’s defence team.

Hayne’s appeal relied on three grounds – the first being the verdicts were unreasonable and not supported by evidence at trial, secondly, the trial judge erred in ruling the complainant did not have to give evidence about a 2021 interaction with the man she messaged the same day the jury found she was sexually assaulted in 2018, and lastly, that the judge’s ruling resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

The Court of Criminal Appeal upheld the second grounds and quashed Hayne’s rape convictions.

“The court will quash the convictions and order a new trial,” Justice Rothman said.

“Whether there is a new trial is a matter for the director of public prosecutions.”


The DPP will drop the case I reckon. How much has the spent ? Will they get another conviction ?

This has been very topical recently in the ACT.


Decisions to prosecute​

There are two tests the DPP must consider in determining whether or not to prosecute a case.

First, based on the evidence, are there reasonable prospects of conviction? In the Lehrmann case, the DPP has determined - and maintains - there are reasonable prospects for a conviction for the charge of sexual intercourse without consent - an offence other states call rape.

Better decisions start with better information.​

If this first test is met, the DPP must then determine whether proceeding with prosecution is in the public interest. It is this second test the DPP referred to when announcing the decision not to proceed with the retrial.

This “public interest test” is complex, and there are countless factors to be considered in making a determination. It is, for example, certainly in the public interest to pursue sexual offences, given the prevalence of sexual violence in the community.

However, this cannot be the only basis on which the decision is made. The DPP specifically referred to a section of the ACT Prosecution Policy (which outlines these tests) that states consideration should be given to “the actual or potential harm occasioned to any person as a result of the alleged offence”. He continued that this required him to consider the harm that could be caused to a survivor in pursuing prosecution.
 

King-Gutho94

Coach
Messages
13,133
^^^
Justice Stephen Rothman upheld the appeal on two of the three grounds argued by Hayne’s defence team.

Hayne’s appeal relied on three grounds – the first being the verdicts were unreasonable and not supported by evidence at trial, secondly, the trial judge erred in ruling the complainant did not have to give evidence about a 2021 interaction with the man she messaged the same day the jury found she was sexually assaulted in 2018, and lastly, that the judge’s ruling resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

The Court of Criminal Appeal upheld the second grounds and quashed Hayne’s rape convictions.

“The court will quash the convictions and order a new trial,” Justice Rothman said.

“Whether there is a new trial is a matter for the director of public prosecutions.”


The DPP will drop the case I reckon. How much has the spent ? Will they get another conviction ?

This has been very topical recently in the ACT.


Decisions to prosecute​

There are two tests the DPP must consider in determining whether or not to prosecute a case.

First, based on the evidence, are there reasonable prospects of conviction? In the Lehrmann case, the DPP has determined - and maintains - there are reasonable prospects for a conviction for the charge of sexual intercourse without consent - an offence other states call rape.

Better decisions start with better information.​

If this first test is met, the DPP must then determine whether proceeding with prosecution is in the public interest. It is this second test the DPP referred to when announcing the decision not to proceed with the retrial.

This “public interest test” is complex, and there are countless factors to be considered in making a determination. It is, for example, certainly in the public interest to pursue sexual offences, given the prevalence of sexual violence in the community.

However, this cannot be the only basis on which the decision is made. The DPP specifically referred to a section of the ACT Prosecution Policy (which outlines these tests) that states consideration should be given to “the actual or potential harm occasioned to any person as a result of the alleged offence”. He continued that this required him to consider the harm that could be caused to a survivor in pursuing prosecution.
Surely 3 trials is enough.
 

Latest posts

Top