News JDB Trial

[Mr Angry]

Not quite that simple and the delay has been due to COVID and the backlog of cases. Though that doesn't explain the first large delay.

I do not think COVID has any influence, this is par for the course, we need more judges, it just seems to be accepted that it takes this long.

We are doing it wrong IMHO.

3 frgin years to resolve a matter, piss poor justice system.

 

[nick87]

Lol, this is just laughable and is exactly why there cant be any meaningful discussion.

I raise my children to be respectful of all. Not just women, everybody.

Because I make a point that there are considerations and factors that Women may be able to alter or be aware of, you post my focus is solely on changing Women.

Its just not that black and white.

As i said earlier, very rarely is this discussion entered into with good faith, but in this occasion it may have been me who jumped that gun. It was probably not fair to distill your post down to that and that alone, so i apologise for that.

In terms of the second part of the post, when these assaults happen, it is my view that yes it is pretty much black and white. This predominately a male issue. And that's my personal focus on this issue.

Anyways, this discussion is already heading down the path it usually does but to reiterate, it's my view that we (the royal we as in society) spend too much time talking about and arguing about what women should do or shouldn't have to do in order mitigate risk, rather than trying to figure out what we can do to stop men committing these crimes and how we can improve our system to hold them accountable when they do.

 

[Mr Angry]

Never forget the moment the NRL corporation wanted to protect it's name, they got a court date very quickly and the matter resolved. Hence Jack is on no fault policy.

Our justice system favours corporations over people.

 

[Last Week]

No it isn't "incel rubbish". The second article I pointed to was written by a woman, FFS.

Are you calling her an incel?

There will always be exceptions to the rule, but it doesn't mean the rule doesn't exist.

Believe what you want. I don't care. I really don't. You live in a fantasy world.

I've seen too many cases of women saying what I just told you and men experiencing what I just told you to know it is true.

The fact that it's not unilateral makes it not a rule.

 

[Last Week]

I do not think COVID has any influence, this is par for the course, we need more judges, it just seems to be accepted that it takes this long.

We are doing it wrong IMHO.

3 frgin years to resolve a matter, piss poor justice system.

It's due to lack of time available. Need to find a court room and judge available for a three week period.

You're quite right. More courts and judges are needed.

Of note, the LNP have recently voted to abolish the Family Law court.

 

[Last Week]

Never forget the moment the NRL corporation wanted to protect it's name, they got a court date very quickly and the matter resolved. Hence Jack is on no fault policy.

Our justice system favours corporations over people.

Well, finding a judge and a court for 2 days available is easier than finding a judge, jury and a court for 3 weeks.

 

[Mr Angry]

Well, finding a judge and a court for 2 days available is easier than finding a judge, jury and a court for 3 weeks.

Yeah so more crime than Judges, probably too busy sending pot smokers to gaol.

 

[Mr Angry]

FTR I am not asking for expediency as he is footballer. I do believe he is being treated like anyone else. Which I give credit to our justice system.

3 frigin years for anyone.

 

[Last Week]

FTR I am not asking for expediency as he is footballer. I do believe he is being treated like anyone else. Which I give credit to our justice system.

3 frigin years for anyone.

I wholey agree with your point. The system needs to be shortened and that can only be done with more courts and judges.

In fairness to this case, it was interrupted by covid (no juries were called for) and this is now the second time this case is being set down for trial. And this case is also competing against other cases for time and courts.

And the courts have been accommodating in moving this trial to Sydney, out of the area, so that justice can be done. Hopefully.

 

[Mr Angry]

Just a thought, do they not record all of it?

Should they all have to testify again? Seems mean on both sides.

Can we not in this day, just show that to a new jury, with all of the evidence?

 

[Last Week]

Just a thought, do they not record all of it?

Should they all have to testify again? Seems mean on both sides.

Can we not in this day, just show that to a new jury, with all of the evidence?

It is all recorded, but it can't happen that way. Evidence needs to be presented and tested before a jury.

There's probably more reasons that I can't think of right now.

 

[Captain Apollo]

Section 132 of the NSW Criminal Procedure Act 1986 deals with judge only trials (which became available in 1990). This website (https://lawpath.com.au/blog/judge-only-trials-who-is-eligible) gives the following summary of how it works -

Criteria for Judge only Trials
Section 132 Orders for Trial by Judge Alone

1. matter must be held in either the District Court or Supreme Court
2. only if both parties agree to the application order
3. prosecutor cannot make the order if the defendant disagrees
4. if prosecutor does not agree to the order, the court may make a trial by judge order if it considers it is in the interests of justice to do so.
5. the court may refuse to make the order if it considers a factual issue that requires the application of objective community standards:
   • Negligence
   • Reasonableness
   • Indecency
   • Obscenity
   • Dangerousness

1. Must refuse to make the order unless satisfied the defendant has sought and received advice about such orders from an Australian lawyer

 

[Captain Apollo]

It is all recorded, but it can't happen that way. Evidence needs to be presented and tested before a jury.

There's probably more reasons that I can't think of right now.

All evidence is taken down in transcript for by court reporters, and many also now video record it too.

Additionally, the trial Judge had this to say about the complainant having to re-give her testimony at the retrial -

Judge Andrew Haesler said the complainant would not be required to give evidence again in the second trial, with her examinations from the first trial to be replayed to the new jury.

Source: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-12-02/de-belin-retrial-date-fixed/12942160

 

[Last Week]

All evidence is taken down in transcript for by court reporters, and many also now video record it too.

Additionally, the trial Judge had this to say about the complainant having to re-give her testimony at the retrial -

Well that's excellent. Good call.

 

[T-Boon]

You don't have mates who you go out with and have a good time with drinking and dancing?

You have buddies you go out dancing with? Haha. You be you.

 

[nick87]

FTR I am not asking for expediency as he is footballer. I do believe he is being treated like anyone else. Which I give credit to our justice system.

3 frigin years for anyone.

Yeah its really a terrible situation.
Guilty or innocent, the accused and alleged victim should not have to wait this long to get a verdict

 

[Valheru]

Not quite. Various people have their own bias and opinions. It's why a unanimous jury decision is required.

If it was just one person not in agreement I could understand but sounds like it was more ocmplex than that,

Additionally, unless the evidence is going to change, what realistic expectation is there that a random group of 12 people will be able to reach a unanimous verdict when 12 other equally random people weren't?

 

[T-Boon]

Additionally, unless the evidence is going to change, what realistic expectation is there that a random group of 12 people will be able to reach a unanimous verdict when 12 other equally random people weren't?

That is what makes it a waste of time, money and resources. If a matter is going to jump the line and hold everybody elses day in court up then we should be allowed to know the jury count. If its 10-2 then I demand they drop it.

 

[Knight76]

All evidence is taken down in transcript for by court reporters, and many also now video record it too.

Additionally, the trial Judge had this to say about the complainant having to re-give her testimony at the retrial -

I wouldn't think that would be in her best interest. The Jury need to hear her, there at the trial. Their case is very reliant on the weight of her evidence and the strength of the witness which won't come across well on tape.

No cross examination by the prosecution and it already appears they have plugged holes in her story and proven she lied to the court., which I would think the defence would want another shot at.

The Just should have been given instructions that they are not there to judge a persons innocence, but their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. And if they can't be sure beyond reasonable doubt of their guilt, they must return a not guilty verdict.

For mine, the Jury in this case has sat on the fence not wanting to put in a verdict and this all parties have to go through another 12 months.

 

[Last Week]

If it was just one person not in agreement I could understand but sounds like it was more ocmplex than that,

Additionally, unless the evidence is going to change, what realistic expectation is there that a random group of 12 people will be able to reach a unanimous verdict when 12 other equally random people weren't?

If that were the case, what's the purpose of re-trials?