Jack De Belin

[possm]

Two hung juries vindicate the decision from the police to lay charges. Their role is not to determine guilt.

Two hung juries indicate the evidence the police submitted were not strong enough. The DPP has done enough damage, it should drop the case immediately.

 

[JamesRustle]

So after all this is he eligible to play or do they need to wait to see if the DDP will find new evidence by 28 May ?

If they wait until 28/5 to clear him, and the decision is made in business hours, he should be good to go against the Tigers at 7.55pm

 

[JamesRustle]

Can the NRL suspend him for bringing the game in disrepute, if in fact he has?

Surely time served on that already.

 

[SBD82]

Two hung juries indicate the evidence the police submitted were not strong enough.

Two hung juries indicates that the evidence submitted was adequate to convince at least 2 jurors beyond reasonable doubt in two separate trials.

It’s not the charging officer’s role to decide guilt. Otherwise we wouldn’t have courts.

 

[Slippery Morris]

This really shows how incompetent and how rushed the previous CEO was to bring this rule in and not to think of this type of scenario arising. Looks like no research was done at all. Just an idea was floated and they all agreed to put in place. This also show why no other sporting codes get involved in matters of the law and leave it for the courts. Did they honestly think having this rule in place would be fine as all cases would result in a guilty charge? It is a rule clearly based on that assumption and no thought was placed if the person ended up with no charge or a not guilty verdict.

 

[Unsainty79]

I can't make comment on the court system or proceedings; however, it will be interesting to see where the NRL go from here. I don't think the stand down rule ever took into account the possibility of hung juries and multiple re-trials. A third trial would realistically be unlikely before September/October & again could run into the following year.

 

[Coffs dragon]

The only winners here are the Lawyers.
You wouldn’t think the young lady would want to be put thru a 3rd re trial for the chance of the same outcome.

 

[slippery5]

Can the NRL suspend him for bringing the game in disrepute, if in fact he has?

I think they already have for 2 yrs.

 

[SnowDragon]

I don’t even know what to make of the situation. 2 trials and still no decision.

 

[Pro Dragons]

The only winners here are the Lawyers.
You wouldn’t think the young lady would want to be put they a 3rd re trial for the chance of the same outcome.

Sadly, you never know what goes through people’s mind.

 

[Dragon David]

I'm just wondering that if the voting for the other 5 charges were in favour of not guilty (like 9-3) in all of the charges, then it could be likely, that the DPP might dismiss the case. Just thinking!!

 

[Captain Hook]

I'm just wondering that if the voting for the other 5 charges were in favour of not guilty (like 9-3) in all of the charges, then it could be likely, that the DPP might dismiss the case. Just thinking!!

Maybe it's the opposite, then there might be a third trial.

 

[Forbes Creek Dragons]

No source, too much speculation my a$$!!!
https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/cou...e/news-story/514d8b716f9d9ba9ea694759f2b999dd

 

[saintly1996]

Maybe it's the opposite, then there might be a third trial.

So does the DPP get to find out what the vote was and is that made public

 

[possm]

Two hung juries indicates that the evidence submitted was adequate to convince at least 2 jurors beyond reasonable doubt in two separate trials.

It’s not the charging officer’s role to decide guilt. Otherwise we wouldn’t have courts.

You paint only one scenario. It could be the case that there were a number of jury members who remain undecided because the evidence to find him guilty was not strong enough any yet a couple believed the police for what ever reason.

 

[Slippery Morris]

Lucky the NRL were not part of the jury. He would be found guilty that is for sure. They did this without the evidence it looks like. Good to know the players are supported by the organisation they make money for.

What is something I don't understand is the victims name was never published which is understandable but shouldn't Jack of had the same sort of arrangement. His reputation has been smashed here. To do this you would assume they were 100% sure he was guilty. Or is that just the law where the press/media can name the person charged but never the victim?

 

[TruSaint]

Lucky the NRL were not part of the jury. He would be found guilty that is for sure. They did this without the evidence it looks like. Good to know the players are supported by the organisation they make money for.

What is something I don't understand is the victims name was never published which is understandable but shouldn't Jack of had the same sort of arrangement. His reputation has been smashed here. To do this you would assume they were 100% sure he was guilty. Or is that just the law where the press/media can name the person charged but never the victim?

The NRL did this ?

No. The Police pressed charges.

Don't mix the stand down rule, with the serious charges he faced.

 

[SBD82]

You paint only one scenario. It could be the case that there were a number of jury members who remain undecided because the evidence to find him guilty was not strong enough any yet a couple believed the police for what ever reason.

Right. They believed the police for “what ever (sic) reason”.

On the balance of probabilities, how likely would you say that it is that those jurors found the evidence presented reliable enough to establish De Belin’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt?

 

[BennyV]

LMAO some people in here rrrreeeeaaaallllllllyyyy don’t understand the very basics of how trials and the justice system works!

 

[BennyV]

You paint only one scenario. It could be the case that there were a number of jury members who remain undecided because the evidence to find him guilty was not strong enough any yet a couple believed the police for what ever reason.

WTF? There is no ‘undecided’ for a juror. If you are ‘undecided’ then you have been presented enough information to cast reasonable doubt, and you judge him as not guilty.
For their to be a hung jury, at least 2 members of the jury are convinced (through the evidence) beyond reasonable doubt that they are guilty. To claim that this should never have gone to trial or put this at the feet of the police is just insanity.