News JDB Trial

[Chief_Chujo]

The onus is on the prosecution to prove their case. The evidence they have presented failed to convince two juries now. Unless they have new evidence they should drop it.

You can't keep dragging people before court endlessly on the same failing arguments.

 

[AnonymousLurker]

He went after them before and lost.

He didn’t appeal as appeal was slated just before first trial ..
also I think judge would look at it differently from missing half a season to 2 and a half years and his contract had expired during that time

 

[BennyV]

He didn’t appeal as appeal was slated just before first trial ..
also I think judge would look at it differently from missing half a season to 2 and a half years and his contract had expired during that time

The length of time wouldn’t matter. The question would be around the validity of the NFSD policy.

 

[BennyV]

The onus is on the prosecution to prove their case. The evidence they have presented failed to convince two juries now. Unless they have new evidence they should drop it.

You can't keep dragging people before court endlessly on the same failing arguments.

I thought NSW Law states that a third trial is only permissible in extraordinary circumstances.
For something high profile, they’d be very hard pushed finding a jury that won’t be coming in with preconceived ideas.

 

[Ron's_Mate]

Seen a few claims that Jack could/should go after the NRL in the event of a not guilty plea but I can’t figure out how or on what grounds.

Yeah, I bet he'd love to get involved in another long running legal action ...

 

[Danish]

Surely by the very definition of the English language if a jury did not find him guilty… then he is not guilty?

the jury is there to decide guilt. Not innocence. If they can’t find him guilty - especially after 2 trials - then he has to walk.

 

[Last Week]

No prosecution in any court turns a profit, so claims that its a waste of money to pursue a third trial is baseless.

People here who think they know whether the DPP should or shouldn't pursue a further trial don't really know what they're talking about. Unless there's a DPP solicitor posting on LU, which would be surprising.

The decision to go to trial again won't be a cost benefit analysis, it'll be based on prospects of success and in the interest of justice.

 

[nick87]

Surely by the very definition of the English language if a jury did not find him guilty… then he is not guilty?

the jury is there to decide guilt. Not innocence. If they can’t find him guilty - especially after 2 trials - then he has to walk.

that’s not how the law works

The jury was unable to come to any verdict on 5 of the charges. No determination on guilt or innocence has been determined on those charges, and all that could be said is as with any matter before the courts, the accused gets the presumption of innocence

 

[Danish]

that’s not how the law works

The jury was unable to come to any verdict on 5 of the charges. No determination on guilt or innocence has been determined on those charges, and all that could be said is as with any matter before the courts, the accused gets the presumption of innocence

the weren’t able to decide he was guilty. By its very definition that means 2 juries have found him not guilty. Courts don’t decide on innocence.

Being not guilty is simply not possessing guilt. It just denotes the lack of something, it’s not it’s own thing. Like being on fire. Are you currently on fire? No? Then you are not on fire. We’re you found guilty? No? Then you are not guilty.

it’s seems stupid that a prosecution could just continuously have more trials until they get a verdict they want

 

[Knight76]

the accused gets the presumption of innocence

Not in the nrl he dont.

The guys career has been ruined. The NRL are incompetent. The nfsd was a pr exercise and jdb has been the chief victim sacrificed at the alter of political correctness.

How, after 2 trials and still no verdict of guilt, in fact the only solid verdict so far has been not guilty, can the NRL continue to stand by this policy or to continue to shred jdb's career any further.

This garbage policy of presumed guilt was always going to blow up in the nrl's face and they should have just said the player is afforded the innocent until proven guilty presumption until a court says otherwise.

Unfortunately the leadership of the nrl are simply incompetent.

 

[nick87]

the weren’t able to decide he was guilty. By its very definition that means 2 juries have found him not guilty. Courts don’t decide on innocence.

Being not guilty is simply not possessing guilt. It just denotes the lack of something, it’s not it’s own thing. Like being on fire. Are you currently on fire? No? Then you are not on fire. We’re you found guilty? No? Then you are not guilty.

it’s seems stupid that a prosecution could just continuously have more trials until they get a verdict they want

The two juries did not render any verdict... I dont know why you find that concept so hard to understand. They have not said he is guilty or innocent, they have said they could not come to an agreement to satisfy the legal requirements for a verdict.

The legal system simply does not work the way you depict it here. He has been found not guilty on one charge and 5 others remain, and it is now up to the DPP as to whether they continue to persue those charges.

 

[Sphagnum]

This thread is officially going places

 

[SBD82]

the weren’t able to decide he was guilty. By its very definition that means 2 juries have found him not guilty. Courts don’t decide on innocence.

Being not guilty is simply not possessing guilt. It just denotes the lack of something, it’s not it’s own thing. Like being on fire. Are you currently on fire? No? Then you are not on fire. We’re you found guilty? No? Then you are not guilty.

it’s seems stupid that a prosecution could just continuously have more trials until they get a verdict they want

Neither jury gave a verdict that he was “not guilty”. They could have delivered that verdict, but they didn’t.

He’s entitled to a presumption of innocence, but that’s not the same thing as a jury finding him not guilty.

 

[Slackboy72]

No prosecution in any court turns a profit, so claims that its a waste of money to pursue a third trial is baseless.

People here who think they know whether the DPP should or shouldn't pursue a further trial don't really know what they're talking about. Unless there's a DPP solicitor posting on LU, which would be surprising.

The decision to go to trial again won't be a cost benefit analysis, it'll be based on prospects of success and in the interest of justice.

There also needs to be 'exceptional circumstances' such as new evidence in NSW.

 

[nick87]

Not in the nrl he dont.

The guys career has been ruined. The NRL are incompetent. The nfsd was a pr exercise and jdb has been the chief victim sacrificed at the alter of political correctness.

How, after 2 trials and still no verdict of guilt, in fact the only solid verdict so far has been not guilty, can the NRL continue to stand by this policy or to continue to shred jdb's career any further.

This garbage policy of presumed guilt was always going to blow up in the nrl's face and they should have just said the player is afforded the innocent until proven guilty presumption until a court says otherwise.

Unfortunately the leadership of the nrl are simply incompetent.

The NRL arent a court of law. They're a private business entitled to protect their image and the image of their sponsors. If they have acted in a way that is illegal, im sure JDB will happily sue them if he's able to get the remaining charges dropped or is found not guilty in future trial.Im not an expert on this so i wouldnt even begin to speculate on if such litigation would be successful or not.

 

[Exsilium]

https://www.news.com.au/sport/nrl/s...l/news-story/889010033e343b6a19b47c434f173212

St George Illawarra Dragons respond to Jack de Belin’s sexual assault trial
The St George Illawarra Dragons have released a statement after Jack de Belin was found not guilty on one charge of sexual assault.

The St George Illawarra Dragons have confirmed Jack de Belin remains subject to the NRL’s no-fault stand down policy after a jury found him not guilty on one charge of sexual assault after his trial in the NSW District Court.

The NRL forward and his friend Callan Sinclair had each pleaded not guilty to five counts of aggravated sexual assault stemming from an incident inside a North Wollongong unit on December 9, 2018.

On Monday, they were both found not guilty on one count of aggravated sexual intercourse without consent relating to one specific sexual act during the incident.

However, the jury of eight men and four women were ultimately dismissed after declaring they could not agree on five other counts before the court.

De Belin has not represented the Dragons since 2018, having been stood down by the NRL in February 2019.

“The Jack de Belin court matter did not reach a verdict on five of the six charges as a result of a hung jury in Sydney District Court on Monday,” the Dragons statement read.

“De Belin was however found not guilty of a sixth charge.

“De Belin remains subject to the NRL’s no-fault stand down policy.

“The next steps concerning all facets of matter are yet to be established.

“The Dragons will continue to provide the necessary welfare support to de Belin and his family.

“As this remains a legal matter, the club will make no further comment at this time.”

Speaking to 2GB, NRL chief executive Andrew Abdo confirmed de Belin will “be free to play” if the Director of Public Prosecutions chooses not to pursue a third trial.

“It’s a tough but a fair rule, but it’s one that’s been affirmed by the Federal Court,” Abdo said on Monday.

“This rule is there for the right reasons, it’s there to protect the game.”

Mr de Belin and Mr Sinclair’s matter will return to court on May 28.

__________________________________________________________________

Key statements in bold.

 

[Danish]

The two juries did not render any verdict... I dont know why you find that concept so hard to understand. They have not said he is guilty or innocent, they have said they could not come to an agreement to satisfy the legal requirements for a verdict.

The legal system simply does not work the way you depict it here. He has been found not guilty on one charge and 5 others remain, and it is now up to the DPP as to whether they continue to persue those charges.

the legal system doesn’t decide on innocence. It decides on guilt.

and guilt only has 2 modes - guilty and not guilty. If you can’t find someone guilty, then they are by definition not guilty. It’s simple logic.

 

[lynx000]

Jury selection is usually first jurors get briefed on duties.
Then jurors get a chance to be excused.
They then state why and judge allows or disallows it.
Then Jurors get selected at random.
Defence and prosecution get a chance to say no to a limited number of jurors.
You can imagine the defence would be saying no to women jurors.

Actually, quite often the defence try to get older women on a sexual assault jury, particularly where the accused are younger good looking males.

 

[lynx000]

Not completely...

What if the woman has a son (sons) the same age as Jack..
What if a Man has a daughter (daughters) the same age as the accuser..
What if a Woman is the only girl in the family with multiple brothers...
What if a Man is the only boy on the family with multiple sisters

It's the whole profile of a person that is judged during the jury selection process for cases with serious charges pending like this. Rather than simple gender balance on the jury.

Mate they have limited information about the jurors, this is not like the USA, they might have a name, age and occupation and that would be about it.

 

[lynx000]

No prosecution in any court turns a profit, so claims that its a waste of money to pursue a third trial is baseless.

People here who think they know whether the DPP should or shouldn't pursue a further trial don't really know what they're talking about. Unless there's a DPP solicitor posting on LU, which would be surprising.

The decision to go to trial again won't be a cost benefit analysis, it'll be based on prospects of success and in the interest of justice.

In circumstances where the trial has been run twice, public interest also becomes a highly relevant factor.