Jdb case

[The Damo]

The points she raises shouldn't even need to be debated, but here we are.

She believed the NRL had to support the fundamental principle of the presumption of innocence and said standing down players before they had their day in court could not be justified.
...
'We really mustn't accept these things unquestioningly because otherwise we erode the presumption of innocence which we are all entitled to.'

"...in the recent case of Jack de Belin he was given bail, which seems to suggest that he is not regarded as a danger to the community,' she said.

'The legal system has made that determination and the NRL could equally decide he is not a danger to any woman while he is playing a game of football under the eyes of so many people.'

The whole article:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...-says-accused-NRL-rapist-Jack-Belin-play.html

I dont think anyone has made the argument that Jack shouldn’t play because he’s a danger to women, so that’s a classic straw man argument.
She also says that nrl players are more likely to be the target of false allegations than police officers for example, but she doesn’t provide any evidence for that and frankly I find that unconvincing given the job police do.
She also doesn’t even seem to make an argument to back up the claim of it eroding the presumption of innocence, it’s just stated without any reasoning. She was a prosecutor, and knows very well that police don’t charge people just on an allegation in sexual assault reports.
If she wants to use her position to argue that the bail process and how the police and prosecutors decide on charges need reform I’m all for it, but the NRL is entitled to defer to those authorities judgment on if an allegation deserves to be charged.

 

[jeffdragon]

Penrith signed a replacement for kikau ,we can't get anyone for Jdb.
It looks like he will be stood down .
We still have room let's sign a replacement.
But after all this is the dragons.

 

[Willow]

I dont think anyone has made the argument that Jack shouldn’t play because he’s a danger to women, so that’s a classic straw man argument.
She also says that nrl players are more likely to be the target of false allegations than police officers for example, but she doesn’t provide any evidence for that and frankly I find that unconvincing given the job police do.
She also doesn’t even seem to make an argument to back up the claim of it eroding the presumption of innocence, it’s just stated without any reasoning. She was a prosecutor, and knows very well that police don’t charge people just on an allegation in sexual assault reports.
If she wants to use her position to argue that the bail process and how the police and prosecutors decide on charges I’m all for it, but the NRL is entitled to defer to those authorities judgment on if an allegation deserves to be charged.

Well you're entitled to disagree but presumption of innocence is a fundamental principle. To do otherwise is indeed an erosion of that principle.

If bail is granted and the conditions attached allow the accused to go back to work, then he/she should be allowed to continue working.

It shouldn't be anymore complicated than that. But it has been made a whole lot more complicated by the media followed by the ARLC and NRL who operate outside of the judiciary.

 

[Obi Wan]

Appears Margret Cuneen views things similarly to RLPA, St George and their sponsors aswell as many in the community, I guess it's apparent we shouldn't rely on Australian media to run stories that present a voice of reason respecting the law and people's rights as it may become obvious that there are many people out there that oppose the stupidity, nonsense and propaganda they are publishing and the decisions the nrl are consequently making.

 

[The Damo]

Well you're entitled to disagree but presumption of innocence is a fundamental principle. To do otherwise is indeed an erosion of that principle.

If bail is granted and the conditions attached allow the accused to go back to work, then he/she should be allowed to continue working.

It shouldn't be anymore complicated than that. But it has been made a whole lot more complicated by the media followed by the ARLC and NRL who operate outside of the judiciary.

I don’t disagree that presumption of innocence is a fundamental principle.
I don’t agree that suspending someone on full pay while they face serious criminal charges effects that presumption in any way. And I haven’t seen anyone, including Margaret in that article spell out how it does?
Jack is still able to continue working - he can train, he can take part in club activities, he can travel with the team, he’s on full pay.
And I think it is more complicated- if Jack plays it will have knock on effects, the NRL is right to consider those. Pretending that you can wave all those potential effects away by reciting presumption of innocence just won’t work, they will happen regardless.

 

[possm]

I don’t disagree that presumption of innocence is a fundamental principle.
I don’t agree that suspending someone on full pay while they face serious criminal charges effects that presumption in any way. And I haven’t seen anyone, including Margaret in that article spell out how it does?
Jack is still able to continue working - he can train, he can take part in club activities, he can travel with the team, he’s on full pay.
And I think it is more complicated- if Jack plays it will have knock on effects, the NRL is right to consider those. Pretending that you can wave all those potential effects away by reciting presumption of innocence just won’t work, they will happen regardless.

The problem is that De Belin is not employed by the ARLC/NRL, he is employed by and has a contract with SGI. Any change is a change of terms of employment and should only be able to be acted upon if both parties agree for the contract to be amended.

The ARLC/NRL are trying to deflect publicity about De Belin so as to not affect the game adversely. However, by their actions they are only heightening attention to this matter.

The course of action taken by the ARLC/NRL seems more to be a way of implementing a retrospective rule without changing player contracts and without taking responsibility for financial and legal matters that occur because of their decision.

 

[The Damo]

The problem is that De Belin is not employed by the ARLC/NRL, he is employed by and has a contract with SGI. Any change is a change of terms of employment and should only be able to be acted upon if both parties agree for the contract to be amended.

The ARLC/NRL are trying to deflect publicity about De Belin so as to not affect the game adversely. However, by their actions they are only heightening attention to this matter.

The course of action taken by the ARLC/NRL seems more to be a way of implementing a retrospective rule without changing player contracts and without taking responsibility for financial and legal matters that occur because of their decision.

His contract hasn’t changed. What part of his contract do you think has changed?
The NRL has decided on this rule, and I’d be quite surprised if it’s found they don’t have a legal right to do so. But Jacks contract is unchanged. There’s nothing in any players contract guaranteeing they can play first grade fortball.

 

[possm]

His contract hasn’t changed. What part of his contract do you think has changed?
The NRL has decided on this rule, and I’d be quite surprised if it’s found they don’t have a legal right to do so. But Jacks contract is unchanged. There’s nothing in any players contract guaranteeing they can play first grade fortball.

I feel very sure that this new rule would have to be included in a players contract prior to the ARLC/NRL being able to stand down a player.

De Belin did not break an NRL rule of the game. If he did there is a process to appear at a hearing before the NRL judiciary committee and put his case.

De Belin's avenue for pleading his case is not within the NRL it is within the courts and this process is ongoing. The NRL should only be able to act if he is found guilty.

 

[Willow]

And I think it is more complicated- if Jack plays it will have knock on effects, the NRL is right to consider those. Pretending that you can wave all those potential effects away by reciting presumption of innocence just won’t work, they will happen regardless.

You may have to elaborate on these knock on effects.

If you mean the image of the game, sponsorship, then I think it has already been shown that this has been overstated.

Rugby League has had this perceived 'image problem' for over 100 years and yet it still continues to grow. The perception that there are recent sponsorship issues has been shown to be a fabrication at best.

And you raise a very good point that these effects will happen anyway. Margaret Cunneen cited numerous other cases where Rugby League players had been accused but later exonerated, but sometimes mud sticks.

So damned if we do, damned if we don't. Once people have been convinced that someone is guilty, it's very hard to change their mind. So I say the League should just do the right thing and stand up for those principles of law. They can't cock it up any more then they have done in the past. Right now, imo, they are making a rod for their own back.

 

[The Damo]

I feel very sure that this new rule would have to be included in a players contract prior to the ARLC/NRL being able to stand down a player.

De Belin did not break an NRL rule of the game. If he did there is a process to appear at a hearing before the NRL judiciary committee and put his case.

De Belin's avenue for pleading his case is not within the NRL it is within the courts and this process is ongoing. The NRL should only be able to act if he is found guilty.

When the NRL brought new rules in around concussions and players passing tests to show they’ve returned to their cognitive baseline do you think they added that clause to every players contract? They gave themselves the ability to stop players from taking the field unless they complied with a new rule. Do you think that was illegal?

 

[TruSaint]

When the NRL brought new rules in around concussions and players passing tests to show they’ve returned to their cognitive baseline do you think they added that clause to every players contract? They gave themselves the ability to stop players from taking the field unless they complied with a new rule. Do you think that was illegal?

This,

Governing bodies change their rules, regulations frequently.. I would guess in a players contract that needs to be ratified by the NRL, terms such as " as amended by time to time " etc, ... , would cover any changes . Of course, that doesn't mean that a player / club can't challenge this, any one can.

Putting all the legal debate aside, with all this scrutiny , does anyone think that Jack would be in a state of mind to run onto the field ?

 

[The Damo]

You may have to elaborate on these knock on effects.

If you mean the image of the game, sponsorship, then I think it has already been shown that this has been overstated.

Rugby League has had this perceived 'image problem' for over 100 years and yet it still continues to grow. The perception that there are recent sponsorship issues has been shown to be a fabrication at best.

And you raise a very good point that these effects will happen anyway. Margaret Cunneen cited numerous other cases where Rugby League players had been accused but later exonerated, but sometimes mud sticks.

So damned if we do, damned if we don't. Once people have been convinced that someone is guilty, it's very hard to change their mind. So I say the League should just do the right thing and stand up for those principles of law. They can't c**k it up any more then they have done in the past. Right now, imo, they are making a rod for their own back.

I don’t think we have seen anything like what could happen if Jack is convicted and gets 15-25 years. I’m certainly not aware of any similar situation. That’s a real risk here.
And I just don’t see that Jack being suspended from playing will make much if any difference to people’s perceptions. People who have made up their mind have done that on the basis of the charge and the known evidence at this time. Whether the NRL lets him play ain’t gonna change that. I just don’t see how the NRL’s stance is effecting any principle of law. If anything they are sticking up for the principle that they have the right to approve who can play in their league. It’s complicated sure and they’ve executed it poorly, but I think they’ve ended up in the right place.

 

[Dorsai]

What you seemingly fail to grasp is that it is perfectly legal to suspend someone from their employment if they are the subject of court proceedings for a serious criminal charge and that is stipulated in a workplace code of conduct. This applies to literally hundreds of thousands of Australian workers (every state and federal public servant for a start). It has absolutely nothing to do with his innocence or guilt.

The same way people are remanded in custody before their innocence or guilt is determined. Or surrender their passports, or are forced to remain in a certain area. As for the "convicted felons", at the time of signing their contract they met all the conditions for registration so it just isn't possible to simply tear those contracts up.

Is it ideal? Is it fair? Probably not, but the NRL have to start somewhere and assuming they can actually write a set of rules that stand up in court (which is possible) then it starts this week.

Public Servants, except for Police, Judicical, or other bodies where th charge may affect the public the officer they deal with do not get stood down based on charges laid.
Changing the goalposts by enacting a new policy or rule is the same as restricting trade. I will be surprised if the court agrees with the NRL

 

[st penguin]

Public Servants, except for Police, Judicical, or other bodies where th charge may affect the public the officer they deal with do not get stood down based on charges laid.
Changing the goalposts by enacting a new policy or rule is the same as restricting trade. I will be surprised if the court agrees with the NRL

That’s not true. Public servants can also get stood down. Even if they aren’t police, teachers etc.

 

[possm]

Public Servants, except for Police, Judicical, or other bodies where th charge may affect the public the officer they deal with do not get stood down based on charges laid.
Changing the goalposts by enacting a new policy or rule is the same as restricting trade. I will be surprised if the court agrees with the NRL

The ARLC/NRL could have avoided all of this controversy by inviting De Belin and his legal people to a private meeting to discuss this.

The obvious solution was to secretly pay out De Belin's contract and off an agreed compensation sum on the condition De Belin resigns. This with a provision to return to the Dragons if found not guilty.

Along with the above deal, SGI should be given a salary cap credit equal to that of what was being used on De Belin. The Club should also be protected against any legal matter that would arise with regards to this action.

Good for the ARLC/NRL
The above deal would have and may still take the whole matter out of the public arena and De Belin would have stood down voluntarily without much fuss. This would achieve the ARLC's desires albeit at a price.

Good for the Club
SGI would be able to get on with it's job of fielding a team in the NRL competition and the De Belin incident would be out of the public eye. SGI could still offer support to De Belin.

Good for De Belin
Yes De Belin would have to stand down our of football until his trial is complete. If found guilty, at least he would have secured funds to take care of his family while he is away. If he is found not guilty he can resume playing until the end of his contract with the NRL deducting his salary from the grant given to SGI each season.

 

[Lovemedragons]

I don’t disagree that presumption of innocence is a fundamental principle.
I don’t agree that suspending someone on full pay while they face serious criminal charges effects that presumption in any way. And I haven’t seen anyone, including Margaret in that article spell out how it does?
Jack is still able to continue working - he can train, he can take part in club activities, he can travel with the team, he’s on full pay.
And I think it is more complicated- if Jack plays it will have knock on effects, the NRL is right to consider those. Pretending that you can wave all those potential effects away by reciting presumption of innocence just won’t work, they will happen regardless.

but until he is proven guilty in a court of law he is just the same as you and I, he is innocent. Punishing him (yeah he is getting paid but he is not allowed to play the game he exists for) whilst he is still seen as innocent under the law of the land just seems wrong to me and can hardly help with perceptions when it comes to getting a fair trial from an untainted jury of his peers. It seems only to be done to protect the image of the NRL (as if there is much left to protect). Its not for the woman involved, by letting him play it does not suggest the accuser is a liar, just means the accusations are untested in court as yet. I hate seeing the persecution of an individual by a corporate entity for the sake of what? Virtue signalling? sometimes the pendulum can swing too far.
Of course if he is found guilty then all bets are off.

 

[2218]

You may have to elaborate on these knock on effects.

If you mean the image of the game, sponsorship, then I think it has already been shown that this has been overstated.

Rugby League has had this perceived 'image problem' for over 100 years and yet it still continues to grow. The perception that there are recent sponsorship issues has been shown to be a fabrication at best.

And you raise a very good point that these effects will happen anyway. Margaret Cunneen cited numerous other cases where Rugby League players had been accused but later exonerated, but sometimes mud sticks.

So damned if we do, damned if we don't. Once people have been convinced that someone is guilty, it's very hard to change their mind. So I say the League should just do the right thing and stand up for those principles of law. They can't c**k it up any more then they have done in the past. Right now, imo, they are making a rod for their own back.

Eve

I dont think anyone has made the argument that Jack shouldn’t play because he’s a danger to women, so that’s a classic straw man argument.
She also says that nrl players are more likely to be the target of false allegations than police officers for example, but she doesn’t provide any evidence for that and frankly I find that unconvincing given the job police do.
She also doesn’t even seem to make an argument to back up the claim of it eroding the presumption of innocence, it’s just stated without any reasoning. She was a prosecutor, and knows very well that police don’t charge people just on an allegation in sexual assault reports.
If she wants to use her position to argue that the bail process and how the police and prosecutors decide on charges need reform I’m all for it, but the NRL is entitled to defer to those authorities judgment on if an allegation deserves to be charged.

FYI police do sometimes charge just on an allegation ie Cardinal Pell

 

[2218]

This,

Governing bodies change their rules, regulations frequently.. I would guess in a players contract that needs to be ratified by the NRL, terms such as " as amended by time to time " etc, ... , would cover any changes . Of course, that doesn't mean that a player / club can't challenge this, any one can.

Putting all the legal debate aside, with all this scrutiny , does anyone think that Jack would be in a state of mind to run onto the field ?

Yes

 

[The Damo]

Eve

FYI police do sometimes charge just on an allegation ie Cardinal Pell

Did they do any investigation before laying charges? Like maybe flying to Italy to interview the suspect? Extensive interviews with the victim and others who may have useful information? Pretty sure they did.
In case you’re wondering how often reports of sexual assault result in charges...

 

[merahputih]

Speaking in general and not about any specific criminal case , the " Presumption of Innocence" principle does not exist outside the law courts. If it did, nobody would ever be arrested, bail could never be refused, passports would never be seized, nobody would ever be refused employment or stood down until found innocent, etc, etc. Outside the courtroom many organisations have the legal right to suspend somebody who has been accused or arrested for an alleged offence that impacts on the standing of an organisation or the nature of their work. Presumption of Innocence under British law, which is the basis of our laws, the US and many other countries simply means the onus in a criminal trial is on the prosecution to prove a defendant guilty, not for the accused to prove their innocence. As St Penguin said, many public servants and politicians and people from a wide range of employment have stood down or been stood down until their name is cleared or otherwise.