Jack DeBelin interview

[Gardenia]

Double pos5

 

[Gardenia]

So why aren’t we working out solutions to why the policy shouldn’t even be in existence?

How do you know they are not .

what about the thousands of cases that are not reported or go to court

More then just alleged victims of football players sadly

It’s a societal issue and it starts with education of children. Your naive if you think only footballers
Need education in what is and is not acceptable behaviour in society

 

[Gardenia]

But we’re not being punished.

Are we?

We’re not the ones on trial facing a long jail term.

We’re not the ones making allegations of something that can ruin a life.

We had a shit season.

One player won’t change that.

How are we being “punished”?

I will reply with quoting my entire post not just one sentence out of context and I think that will cover it. See below;

No it’s not but also why should the club or fans be punished. It’s not just 2 years it will have a ripple on effect and people could lose jobs affecting families and their children . It could have been handled a lot better . The court case is actually none of our/my business and the courts will handle that. Sadly this is one of thousands of these cases. What is more theconcern is the cases that don’t go to court. And it’s all just a sign of how shit society is. Theclub is our business .

 

[Gardenia]

So how exactly are we as fans being “punished” then?

Not being were

see posts #298 to #332

 

[possm]

I’m not sure our “punishment” is the most important issue right now..

And let’s wait for the outcome of Jack’s current court case before we start thinking about his next one..

Regardless of the outcome, the NRL lead with the story that this matter was damaging the financial prosperity of the NRL. Storm being a witness sighting how they had lost income.

This was a load of rubbish. The only entities damaged at the time was the Club and De Belin. I have a strong belief that the same policy and the retrospective nature of this policy would not have been implemented if it was a Storm or Roosters player.

With the current NRL policy in place there was still a huge amount of negative media hype being published. Irrespective of this policy, De Belin will be judged guilty or not guilty.

The fact that our administration did very little to bring the NRL to the table speaks volumes about our former CEO ability and the Board's attitude towards the best interests of the Club. But the language and vigorous manner of the NRL in relation to this new policy in my opinion only made it worse for all parties involved.

 

[T-Boon]

I think they should have brought in the no fault stand down rule but not been retrospective with it allowing DeBellin to play but being able to say this case is the reason we brought it in but it was unfair to him to retro activate it.

 

[muzby]

How do you know they are not .

what about the thousands of cases that are not reported or go to court

More then just alleged victims of football players sadly

It’s a societal issue and it starts with education of children. Your naive if you think only footballers
Need education in what is and is not acceptable behaviour in society

But why did the NRL have to launch the policy in the first place?

Rather than try and work out the perfect way to implement a stand down policy because we’re annoyed we lost a player, surely we should be working on a way to not need it at all?

 

[muzby]

I will reply with quoting my entire post not just one sentence out of context and I think that will cover it. See below;

No it’s not but also why should the club or fans be punished. It’s not just 2 years it will have a ripple on effect and people could lose jobs affecting families and their children . It could have been handled a lot better . The court case is actually none of our/my business and the courts will handle that. Sadly this is one of thousands of these cases. What is more theconcern is the cases that don’t go to court. And it’s all just a sign of how shit society is. Theclub is our business .

I’m still struggling to understand exactly why you say fans are being punished.

I’m a fan & a member. I don’t feel that I’m being punished because of this policy.

Rather than just repost the same thing, can you please elaborate how exactly fans are being punished?

 

[Exsilium]

But why did the NRL have to launch the policy in the first place?

Rather than try and work out the perfect way to implement a stand down policy because we’re annoyed we lost a player, surely we should be working on a way to not need it at all?

I agree with this. Assaults, physical or otherwise have occurred on several occasions. Add that in with all of the other indiscretions over the years and you have a very good reason to stamp this stuff out.

That being said, the games administrators would be hammered regardless of the policy but ultimately, I’d rather they continue to explore new ways to ensure our game isn’t continually damaged by what I would consider a small number of players who don’t do the right thing.

 

[be55]

*Deleted by moderator*

I can certainly appreciate that this topic will obviously stir up deeply held beliefs and opinions due to the nature of the alleged activity and it is my strongly held belief that until the court decides the outcome people should try to not come to a conclusion, either way, which may be contradictory to the final court decision, but in saying all that...

Possum...that's one of your worst mate

I like reading your posts mate...this place would be a lot quieter if you weren't here to offer up your opinions, *removed by moderator*

I personally feel uncomfortable commenting on this case but i have pointed out in previous posts that Jack could be telling the truth of what happened that night, and that people shouldn't be rushing to condemn him on an accusation alone but obviously that goes the same for this women too. This is a very serious allegation that needed to be investigated and ultimately put before the courts.

Whatever the court decides, *removed by moderator*.

 

[Dragsters]

I’m not sure if it’s ironic or sad that we’re debating the fairest way to have the no-fault stand down policy work rather than debating why the NRL had to introduce it in the first place..

It's both sadly ironic and ironically sad...

 

[WoyD4LWoy]

Police gave legally privileged material from Jack de Belin's phone to prosecutors
Angus Thompson
November 17, 2020 — 1.40pm

A detective investigating rape claims against St George Illawarra NRL star Jack de Belin has admitted to delivering legally privileged material from the footballer's phone to prosecutors.

Under questioning by the rugby league player's barrister David Campbell SC, Detective Senior Constable Benjamin Sutton agreed before the NSW District Court in Wollongong that during an analysis of Mr de Belin's mobile phone he became aware there was legally protected material in the data he had collected.

"When you served material, you had included in it what was plainly privileged material, hadn't you?" Mr Campbell asked, to which Detective Senior Constable Sutton replied, "yes."

"That shouldn't have happened, should it?" Mr Campbell asked.

Detective Senior Constable Sutton replied, "the serving of the material? In hindsight, no."

Legal privilege protects all communication between a person and their lawyers from being seen by anyone else.

The detective also said he didn't complete a disclosure certificate, a document asserting all legally appropriate steps had been taken when serving documents, when serving the material to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, as well as the defence team, in January this year.

Mr de Belin, 29, and Shellharbour Sharks footballer Callan Sinclair, 23, are facing a jury trial, having both pleaded not guilty to five charges of aggravated sexual assault of a woman in a Wollongong apartment in the early hours of December 9, 2018.

The men both claim the encounter with the woman, then 19, was entirely consensual.

The trial continues.

https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw...n-s-phone-to-prosecutors-20201117-p56fb9.html

 

[Gareth67]

Police gave legally privileged material from Jack de Belin's phone to prosecutors
Angus Thompson
November 17, 2020 — 1.40pm

A detective investigating rape claims against St George Illawarra NRL star Jack de Belin has admitted to delivering legally privileged material from the footballer's phone to prosecutors.

Under questioning by the rugby league player's barrister David Campbell SC, Detective Senior Constable Benjamin Sutton agreed before the NSW District Court in Wollongong that during an analysis of Mr de Belin's mobile phone he became aware there was legally protected material in the data he had collected.

"When you served material, you had included in it what was plainly privileged material, hadn't you?" Mr Campbell asked, to which Detective Senior Constable Sutton replied, "yes."

"That shouldn't have happened, should it?" Mr Campbell asked.

Detective Senior Constable Sutton replied, "the serving of the material? In hindsight, no."

Legal privilege protects all communication between a person and their lawyers from being seen by anyone else.

The detective also said he didn't complete a disclosure certificate, a document asserting all legally appropriate steps had been taken when serving documents, when serving the material to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, as well as the defence team, in January this year.

Mr de Belin, 29, and Shellharbour Sharks footballer Callan Sinclair, 23, are facing a jury trial, having both pleaded not guilty to five charges of aggravated sexual assault of a woman in a Wollongong apartment in the early hours of December 9, 2018.

The men both claim the encounter with the woman, then 19, was entirely consensual.

The trial continues.

https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw...n-s-phone-to-prosecutors-20201117-p56fb9.html

Ouch ! I certainly do not know if the ‘ transfer of privileged information ‘ to the incorrect individuals constitutes a mis - trial , but that must be very close .

 

[Gardenia]

But why did the NRL have to launch the policy in the first place?

Rather than try and work out the perfect way to implement a stand down policy because we’re annoyed we lost a player, surely we should be working on a way to not need it at all?

Hmmmm I get what your saying but they can’t turn back time and seems they were in damage control after the off season from hell

 

[Old Timer]

How incredibly sad that when you look at any of the threads concerning potential signings there is always the caveat about "depending on what happens with JDB"

We now approach a 3rd year where JDB permeates everything we can / can't do re our roster.

Professional clubs don't allow 1 man to hold the club in disarray for a season let alone potentially 3.

 

[Gardenia]

I’m still struggling to understand exactly why you say fans are being punished.

I’m a fan & a member. I don’t feel that I’m being punished because of this policy.

Rather than just repost the same thing, can you please elaborate how exactly fans are being punished

Again not are , we’re. And I highlighted all the relevant posts

 

[matPORTS]

Police gave legally privileged material from Jack de Belin's phone to prosecutors
Angus Thompson
November 17, 2020 — 1.40pm

A detective investigating rape claims against St George Illawarra NRL star Jack de Belin has admitted to delivering legally privileged material from the footballer's phone to prosecutors.

Under questioning by the rugby league player's barrister David Campbell SC, Detective Senior Constable Benjamin Sutton agreed before the NSW District Court in Wollongong that during an analysis of Mr de Belin's mobile phone he became aware there was legally protected material in the data he had collected.

"When you served material, you had included in it what was plainly privileged material, hadn't you?" Mr Campbell asked, to which Detective Senior Constable Sutton replied, "yes."

"That shouldn't have happened, should it?" Mr Campbell asked.

Detective Senior Constable Sutton replied, "the serving of the material? In hindsight, no."

Legal privilege protects all communication between a person and their lawyers from being seen by anyone else.

The detective also said he didn't complete a disclosure certificate, a document asserting all legally appropriate steps had been taken when serving documents, when serving the material to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, as well as the defence team, in January this year.

Mr de Belin, 29, and Shellharbour Sharks footballer Callan Sinclair, 23, are facing a jury trial, having both pleaded not guilty to five charges of aggravated sexual assault of a woman in a Wollongong apartment in the early hours of December 9, 2018.

The men both claim the encounter with the woman, then 19, was entirely consensual.

The trial continues.

https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw...n-s-phone-to-prosecutors-20201117-p56fb9.html

This is probably one of the factors behind the "complex legal arguments" which held up the commencement of the trial by several months.

 

[T-Boon]

Ouch ! I certainly do not know if the ‘ transfer of privileged information ‘ to the incorrect individuals constitutes a mis - trial , but that must be very close .

I reckon the message must not be very relevant otherwise the D would rather not bring it up.
It would only be a problem and mistrial territory if the jury saw what it was.

 

[Gareth67]

I reckon the message must not be very relevant otherwise the D would rather not bring it up.
It would only be a problem and mistrial territory if the jury saw what it was.

Perhaps T-Boon , however I am quite sure that it was not only 1message ( or photo/s ? ) that was passed on . Also the detective in question did not complete the ‘ disclosure certificate ‘ to the Public Prosecutor Office , therefore he did not adhere to the correct procedure put in place to ensure the authenticity of documents . That in itself could place a big question mark over the trial , then again I am probably way off the mark .

 

[WoyD4LWoy]

SportNRL
Jack de Belin alleged victim accused of ‘inconsistencies’ by NRL star’s defence team

November 17, 2020 3:00pm

The woman who has alleged she was sexually assaulted by Jack de Belin has been accused of inconsistencies in key parts of her initial police interview.

Mr de Belin, 29, and Callan Sinclair, 23, are standing trial in Wollongong’s District Court where they have pleaded not guilty to five counts of aggravated sexual assault.

The pair have claimed that the woman consented to sex in the North Wollongong apartment after drinking during a pub crawl in the early hours of December 9, 2018.

Mr de Belin’s barrister David Campbell SC has questioned why a junior Detective did not disclose to the department of public prosecutions what he claimed were inconsistencies between her police interview and other evidence collected by the strike force assembled to investigate the alleged incident.

Mr Campbell suggested to Detective Benjamin Sutton that the woman made several claims in her initial police interview, on the afternoon of December 9, which did not marry up to other evidence.



The woman, during her evidence, told the court that Mr de Belin had taken her top off before the alleged assault.

However Mr Campbell said that during her interview that she told the officer in charge of the investigation that Mr de Belin had attempted to take her top off however she grabbed her clothing to prevent it being taken off before being pushed onto the bed.

“I do remember something along those lines,” Det Sutton said.

Det Sutton said that had he noticed there were inconsistencies that he would have reported it to his senior officer.

Mr Campbell also said that during that first interview, the complainant had said Mr de Belin forced her shorts off with the assistance of Mr Sinclair.

However the woman said during her evidence that it was Mr de Belin alone who took her shorts off.

Det Sutton said he could not recall her making such a claim.

Mr Campbell also claimed that during her interview with police on the Sunday afternoon, that the woman had said something about seeing a housemate in the townhouse during the alleged sexual assault.

While giving evidence, she strongly denied seeing a person standing in the bedroom doorway prior to the alleged assault.

Her claims about how she was duped into coming with the two men to the apartment were also brought into question.

After dancing and drinking with a group of men, which included Mr de Belin and Mr Sinclair, at the Mr Crown nightclub, she said that they agreed to move onto the nearby Fever club.

She said that during a tuktuk ride, Mr de Belin offered the driver $50 to make a sudden turn and directed him towards the Gipps St apartment, which was occupied by his cousin.

The alleged victim said that the two men told her they were going to stop off because they needed to charge their phones.

However Mr Campbell said that: “You heard the complainant during the afternoon on Sunday say that Mr de Belin and Mr Sinclair asked the rider to take them to Gipps Street as they needed to get changed before continuing to the new nightclub.”

“I can’t recall the exact statement,” Det Sutton said.

“Yet in her statement she said that they said they needed to charge their phones,” Mr Campbell said.

“To be honest I haven’t read her statement in years, so I can’t recall,” Det Sutton said.

The trial before Andrew Haesler continues.

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/amp...m/news-story/baf88671888d3bc9200804164940a90f