Hayne~NFL~RU~Tits~Eels~Dad~Jailed~Mistrial~Jailed~Retrial~Jailed~Appeal~Quashed-Sued~Fat Coach

[Gronk]

The case is an embarrassment to the system.

The "system" favours people with cash. It is doubtful that Fred Nerk from Canley Vale would be able to achieve the same outcome.

Conversely, did the "system" go after him because of his celebrity ? I am not doubting the victim's testimony, but am wondering out loud if the case was ever that strong. Beyond reasonable doubt etc.

Yes I have questions, but no answers.

 

[blue bags]

Hopefully gets bail
Just in time for the Olympics
Rugby 7s Fiji

 

[T-Boon]

The "system" favours people with cash. It is doubtful that Fred Nerk from Canley Vale would be able to achieve the same outcome.

Conversely, did the "system" go after him because of his celebrity ? I am not doubting the victim's testimony, but am wondering out loud if the case was ever that strong. Beyond reasonable doubt etc.

Yes I have questions, but no answers.

I am saying reasonable doubt is a joke of a concept and I think jury’s don’t care about judges directions like they use to. They just do what ever they want. Judge also live in fear of activists.

 

[hineyrulz]

Welfare check for @the phantom menace

 

[the phantom menace]

Surely 3 trials is enough.

You'd think so. That's what De Belin had, wasn't it.

Still, Hayne and his lawyers may want to push for a fourth trial, because he hasn't been found "not guilty".

 

[the phantom menace]

Hopefully gets bail
Just in time for the Olympics
Rugby 7s Fiji

Maybe Greco-Roman Wrestling for Fiji, given his current physique.

 

[the phantom menace]

Oh dear poor Bart will be livid

Welfare check for @the phantom menace

Your concerns are much appreciated

 

[the phantom menace]

Reading the article/appeal judgment, I have no personal ill will to the bloke - and given time already served hope that he is released on bail and reunites with his family.

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 two people 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 dismissed the first ground but allowed the appeal on the second and third grounds.

^ So the above indicates the appeal judge did not believe the (guilty) verdicts were unreasonable and not supported by evidence at trial.

 

[the phantom menace]

As to whether or not the DPP proceeds to a fourth trial - where the appeal judgment dictates that "evidence about a 2021 interaction with two people she messaged the same day (as Hayne's prior appeal)" should be allowed by the defence - probably falls on the no new trial, I'd predict.

That decision would take into account that Hayne's sentence without that evidence being considered was 4 years 9 months, with parole after 2 years 9 months - and Hayne as already served 1 year 9 months behind bars. So there's only a maximum of 12 months more in prison at stake (possibly reduced if that evidence somehow influences a judge's belief in the degree of the alleged crimes), and it's probably not worth the DPP paperwork and expense for the fourth trial.

 

[blue bags]

June 30th
Still got time for NRL this year
Sign on fee contract
Haynes old club
Gold Coast Titans

 

[the phantom menace]

Reading the article/appeal judgment, I have no personal ill will to the bloke - and given time already served hope that he is released on bail and reunites with his family.

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 two people 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 dismissed the first ground but allowed the appeal on the second and third grounds.

^ So the above indicates the appeal judge did not believe the (guilty) verdicts were unreasonable and not supported by evidence at trial.

And the fact that this appeal judge dismissed Hayne's first grounds of appeal - and hence had no issue with the guilty verdict being reasonable and supported by evidence - still bodes badly for Hayne in the eventual civil proceedings, where the standard of proof is less than for the criminal proceedings.

He'll probably have to make another payout to settle those proceedings relating to his actions, just like he previously did in the US case.

 

[Gronk]

You'd think so. That's what De Belin had, wasn't it.

Still, Hayne and his lawyers may want to push for a fourth trial, because he hasn't been found "not guilty".

That might be going back into the lion's cage to retrieve your hat ?

 

[Incorrect]

Quashed. Possible innocent person has been wrongly convicted
Looks like Haynes gets bail at midday today

Damn, 24 hours earlier and we coulda had a much more interesting Team List Tuesday thread...

 

[Gronk]

In his written judgment, Justice Rothman noted: "In the current circumstances, it is unlikely that a new trial will occur before the expiry of the non-parole period and most of that period has already been served" and suggested there is "good reason for there not to be a fourth trial."

Jarryd Hayne released from jail after sexual assault convictions quashed

The 36-year-old was last year sentenced to nearly five years in prison for sexually assaulting a woman in her Newcastle home on the night of the 2018 NRL grand final.

www.abc.net.au

 

[the phantom menace]

For anyone who wants the link to the full appeal judgement, it's here:

Hayne v R - NSW Caselaw

www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au

The full paragraph quoted in news articles re "good reasons" actually reads:

246. In the current circumstances, it is unlikely that a new trial will occur before the expiry of the non-parole period and most of that period has already been served. As stated, there is good reason for there not to be a fourth trial, but, in my view, given that the ground of unreasonable verdict was not upheld, the discretion not to undertake a fourth trial is one to be exercised by the Crown. The circumstance that the Court may order a new trial does not restrict the discretion reposed in the Crown not to proceed to trial again.
(My bolding and underlining.)

That is, the good reasons (described at 245 [96]) were that the error upheld in the appeal did not relate in any way to the nature or quality of the evidence that was led or available to be led in support of the Crown case (against Hayne).

 

[emjaycee]

Except the 2nd ground for dismissal (one of the 2 that passed), was that certain evidence was not required to be presented at trial. So one would assume that it now should/could/would be if there is a future trial.
And who is to say that said evidence if presented at trial, would not be of a nature or quality that would find Hayne not guilty?

 

[WaznTheGreat]

Bruh,This trial gonne have more DLC than Elden Ring

 

[The Silverdale Phantom]

I knew he was innocent all along.

I could tell by the look on his face.

I can now put down my signage and leave the front of Goulburn jail.

Ps: is the crown off to the High Court?

 

[blue bags]

I knew he was innocent all along.

I could tell by the look on his face.

I can now put down my signage and leave the front of Goulburn jail.

Ps: is the crown off to the High Court?

Lidcombe jail
Not maximum security Goulburn jail

 

[the phantom menace]

Except the 2nd ground for dismissal (one of the 2 that passed), was that certain evidence was not required to be presented at trial. So one would assume that it now should/could/would be if there is a future trial.
And who is to say that said evidence if presented at trial, would not be of a nature or quality that would find Hayne not guilty?

True, no-one can say but a jury appointed for the next trial - if there is one.

However through his hesitation to make a complete acquittal (and dismissal of the first grounds) the judge in this appeal leave it very much an open matter (i.e. not guilty or still guilty) if that evidence was included for the jury in a new trial.

Another possibility that could arise from a fourth trial (should there be one) is still guilty but with reduced sentence based on any impact of that evidence - and given time already served (with only 12mths to original parole date remaining) that would likely push the DPP decision toward it being worth a fourth trial on this issue (and this judge has predicted as much in the ruling).

The absence of the DPP pursuing a fourth trial is also very much not the same as an actual not guilty ruling in a criminal trial - and I understand the civil proceedings on this matter are continuing.