News Jarryd Hayne sexual assault trials

[The_Frog]

I guess he'd be back out on the street around about now.

 

[PantherMick]

Word on the streets is an unnamed player manager is trying to entice Hayne to boxing.

He is trying to organise a card that includes DeBelin v Hayne......

What would you dub it?

 

[The Silverdale Phantom]

When did that happen? I think you are making that up.

No, he’s not making it up, he is spot on.

The media reported that Haynesy was yelling out loudly “I am innocent” or words to that effect as he was led away in the District Court.

Upon hearing this, many people in the gallery were shocked that the judge didn’t change her mind straight away and dispense with the jury’s verdict.

The smoking gun.

Irrefutable evidence of his innocence because the entitled prick ( in my opinion) said so.

Amnesty has raised the issue with the UN several times and the Peoples Republic Of China is accusing us of human rights violations in the world press.

 

[The Silverdale Phantom]

Just the update for @YoHadrian, my spies tell me the most recent decision is restricted.

Whatever that means.

 

[Last Week]

Yet again people here are using the 'innocent until proven guilty' line as the only test for determining whether or not something happened.

Innocent until proven guilty is purely a legal term and is only used in criminal matters. Likewise, just because someone is found not guilty, doesn't mean they are innocent. It just means the prosecution couldn't prove the allegation beyond reasonable doubt. Which is a high test.

Further, the test of reasonable doubt is only ever used in criminal charges. At no point anywhere else in life, whether it be civil matters, rental tribunals, employment/HR disputes, or determining which of your kids broke a window, is that same test used.

There is a big difference, and people need to understand that even though Jarryd may 'get off' in the future, it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

 

[Smug Panther]

Tigpies time baby

 

[mxlegend99]

There is a big difference, and people need to understand that even though Jarryd may 'get off' in the future, it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Likewise being found guilty doesn't mean it did happen. First group of jurors couldn't agree on a verdict..next group were convinced he was guilty but the judge gave them the wrong directions.

If they found him innocent the third time it means 3 trials had 3 different results. In which case obviously the verdict doesn't mean that's actually what happened. It's just what that particular group of people believe happened.

 

[The Silverdale Phantom]

Beyond a reasonable doubt is the appropriate test to use to determine guilt or innocence, that is why we have it.

This is especially true when the accused is facing incarceration.

The test should not be a 50/50 balance. It should not be in the nature of a flip of coin or a best guess.

The process should be comprehensive and proper.

People’s very futures and lives are at stake, it’s not a rental bond agreement. It a forever proposition on that charge, subject to appeal.

There are many different legal tests.

The Criminal Court of Appeal, that body with the wisest judges in NSW (the top of the top) has determined that Mr Haynes conviction should be overturned.

On that basis, he is thoroughly entitled to the presumption of innocence and any assertion, inference or imputation that he is guilty of these offences…. is rubbish.

I think he’s an entitled dickhead, but he stands before us, at this time, as innocent of the charges laid.

The law lords have spoken. There is nothing to argue about.

Accordingly, I have retracted my harsh comments about him and cop the decision of the referee.

Mr Hayne should be granted bail and the prosecution examine the judgment carefully to see if they can actually meet the test.

It would be an interesting read.

There’s no offence of being an entitled dickhead.

 

[AlwaysGreen]

Time to bring back @Haynetrain

 

[some11]

I just don't see how anyone aside from him or her can ever know for certain what happened. The evidence doesnt really prove he's guilty. It's simply down to which story people believe.

The reliability and honesty of the victim’s evidence was tested at length and in my view her reliability and honesty were not in doubt. She was very clear that she said, “No”, several times and further indicated it by actions. No other conclusion can be drawn other than that the offender knew she did not consent.

R v Jarryd Lee HAYNE - NSW Caselaw

www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au

 

[mxlegend99]

The reliability and honesty of the victim’s evidence was tested at length and in my view her reliability and honesty were not in doubt. She was very clear that she said, “No”, several times and further indicated it by actions. No other conclusion can be drawn other than that the offender knew she did not consent.

R v Jarryd Lee HAYNE - NSW Caselaw

www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au

That's literally just believing her story and evidence of nothing.

 

[T-Boon]

That's literally just believing her story and evidence of nothing.

Yep and she is white while Hayne is black. We are learning more and more out of America how that affects juries. White female complainant black male accused is not ending well for the D.

 

[hineyrulz]

Time to bring back @Haynetrain

Let him out of your basement FFS!!

 

[The_Frog]

Yep and she is white while Hayne is black. We are learning more and more out of America how that affects jury’s. White female complainant black male accused is not ending well for the D.

It affects juries in America, in the opposite way to what it used to. America is a very very strange place. In Austral;ia I wouldn't be so sure. This third trial will surely be judge only in any case, wouldn't it?

And you wouldn't call Hayne black anyway. Polynesian more like it.

 

[Captain Apollo]

It affects juries in America, in the opposite way to what it used to. America is a very very strange place. In Austral;ia I wouldn't be so sure. This third trial will surely be judge only in any case, wouldn't it?

And you wouldn't call Hayne black anyway. Polynesian more like it.

That is assuming there is a third trial. In cases of a re-trial it if usually the Office of the Director Public Prosecutions who determines whether they think they can get a conviction, and the costs involved, in warranting a third trial. So we will just have to wait and see.

 

[T-Boon]

Its another interesting detail that everything has been "open court" and therefore totally presented to the jury pool even though it affects the likelihood of a fair trial but the first time Hayne gets a win in this matter the decision is restricted.

 

[The Silverdale Phantom]

That is assuming there is a third trial. In cases of a re-trial it if usually the Office of the Director Public Prosecutions who determines whether they think they can get a conviction, and the costs involved, in warranting a third trial. So we will just have to wait and see.

I think that would be evidence based rather than the unfortunate “alleged” judicial misdirections.

The arguments Haynes lawyers used for the Appeal have been reported in the press but not the decision, so it’s hard to work out which ones flew.

I understand her account to Police about what happened soon after the event- appeared to differ from evidence they sourced from elsewhere. But this could be wrong, of little weight and beyond that not even decisive for the CCA.

Nonetheless, If there are substantial evidential difficulties, I agree they may decide to drop it.

I would not be surprised.

I am a bit disappointed in the judge allegedly screwing up, not as much as Her Honour I guess. I guess it happens. No ones perfect. It would be very serious if that was the only ground that was successful on Appeal.

 

[The_Frog]

That is assuming there is a third trial. In cases of a re-trial it if usually the Office of the Director Public Prosecutions who determines whether they think they can get a conviction, and the costs involved, in warranting a third trial. So we will just have to wait and see.

The Court of Criminal Appeal ordered a retrial.

 

[The Silverdale Phantom]

The Court of Criminal Appeal ordered a retrial.

So what?

The CCA can’t compel the odpp prosecute anyone.

The legislation empowers the odpp to drop cases, see below (b).

View - NSW legislation

legislation.nsw.gov.au

 

[Captain Apollo]

The Court of Criminal Appeal ordered a retrial.

Yes, but as Silverdale Phantom posted above, the ultimate decision on whether a retrial goes ahead or they decide to not go forward with a retrial rests with the DPP. Whilst it is not exactly the same, Jack De Bellin had 2 trials which resulted in hung juries, the DPP ultimately decided against third trial.

In this case the DPP has to weigh the reasons that the conviction was quashed, how it may effect the evidence/case against Hayne, and hence whether the DPP considers the likelihood of getting a conviction and whether a third trial in that light is worth the cost.