What's new
By:
Advanced search…
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

News Josh Reynolds DV accusation (charges dropped 26/2/20)

A

AJB1102

First Grade
Messages
6,339
gUt said:
Presumably she could be done for making a false/malicious complaint to police, this on top of whatever fraud she could be proven to have committed in the past. Probably victims would need to want to press charges.
Click to expand...

I'd guess Josh will cut his losses and move on.

The NRL must be breathing a sigh of relief they didn't have impose the NFSD on this one. What is it now? Semi, SKD, JRey all falsely accused.
 
A

AJB1102

First Grade
Messages
6,339
Cactus said:
(1) A person who by any deception dishonestly obtains for himself or another any financial advantage is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to level 5 imprisonment (10 years maximum).

Maximum 10 years eh. From that it appears she just scrapes in from being stood down by Todd.
Click to expand...

What about "herself"? Or "their self"?
 
Last Week

Last Week

Bench
Messages
3,725
myrrh ken said:
But if the particulars are wrong, then the police will have to amend the application re her name or get another statement from her addressing the name issue. It would definitely need attention. I don't know if it's a fatal issue - but on first principles, the police need to establish the basic elements. I don't think Froggy is necessarily wrong. They are my submissions such as they are.
Click to expand...

That's better.

The prosecution would need to have the indictment amended for the sake of corrwctness, but it never got to that point. And it's an amendment that can be made at any point before conviction.

Clearly, as the matter was withdrawn before that issue was raised, it wasn't withdrawn because of it. Which shows that Frog is actually completely wrong and talking complete shit like he usually does.
 
Last Week

Last Week

Bench
Messages
3,725
AJB1102 said:
So for all the legal eagles - professional, amateur enthusiast or just watched a little Matlock in your day - what happens to this scumbag Arabella Del Aliases?
Click to expand...

Maybe, it would depend on what evidence exists.

The police would need to prove, almost 100%, that her statement was false. It's not as simple as saying that what she alleged Josh did couldn't be proven, amounts to providing a false statement.

*The following is not directed towards, or in direct response to AJB1102. Last Week apologies for any feelings that may have been hurt.*

People seem to have a misconception about these sorts of things. Just because a court finds a person not guilty, doesn't mean that the person who made the allegation, was lying. It's very much not the case.

It's just that there wasn't enough evidence to satisfy a judge, jury or magistrate, to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt.
 
Last edited:
Last Week

Last Week

Bench
Messages
3,725
Cactus said:
(1) A person who by any deception dishonestly obtains for himself or another any financial advantage is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to level 5 imprisonment (10 years maximum).

Maximum 10 years eh. From that it appears she just scrapes in from being stood down by Todd.
Click to expand...

Wrong offence.
 
G

gordsy

Juniors
Messages
2,122
blue bags said:
that means i could play origin for any state. nice
Click to expand...
Not sure about that as NSW only does changes of names for people born in NSW. If you were born outside of NSW you get sent back to that state or territory. If you were born overseas you get a change of change certificate
 
A

AJB1102

First Grade
Messages
6,339
Last Week said:
Maybe, it would depend on what evidence exists.

The police would need to prove, almost 100%, that her statement was false. It's not as simple as saying that what she alleged Josh did couldn't be proven, amounts to providing a false statement.

People seem to have a misconception about these sorts of things. Just because a court finds a person not guilty, doesn't mean that the person who made the allegation, was lying. It's very much not the case.

It's just that there wasn't enough evidence to satisfy a judge, jury or magistrate, to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt.
Click to expand...

I asked a question and you replied "maybe" like I suggested something.

I got nothing to do with that rant.
 
T-Boon

T-Boon

Coach
Messages
15,862
gUt said:
T-Boon: early and accurate as usual.
Click to expand...

I appreciate this.
I am going to need all the support I can get over the next few weeks while I drop a bunch of brilliant rule change threads (BRCTs) leading into the season that are going to be met with the usual ridicule even though they are awesome ideas.
 
gUt

gUt

Coach
Messages
16,935
T-Boon said:
I appreciate this.
I am going to need all the support I can get over the next few weeks while I drop a bunch of brilliant rule change threads (BRCTs) leading into the season that are going to be met with the usual ridicule even though they are awesome ideas.
Click to expand...

Shine on you crazy diamond
 
franklin2323

franklin2323

Immortal
Messages
33,546
Last Week said:
Maybe, it would depend on what evidence exists.

The police would need to prove, almost 100%, that her statement was false. It's not as simple as saying that what she alleged Josh did couldn't be proven, amounts to providing a false statement.

People seem to have a misconception about these sorts of things. Just because a court finds a person not guilty, doesn't mean that the person who made the allegation, was lying. It's very much not the case.

It's just that there wasn't enough evidence to satisfy a judge, jury or magistrate, to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt.
Click to expand...

One party not even providing their proper name isn’t going to get them far regardless of guilt. Throw in the history of lying and it was a shot case even before you get into the events of what has or hasn’t happened
 
bileduct

bileduct

Coach
Messages
17,832
Last Week said:
Wrong offence.
Click to expand...
There were some allegations of Centrelink fraud using faked medical records.

Also the dead mother con, though not sure if that would be a civil or criminal matter? The one bloke in Queensland took a claim to the CAT for her to repay the $8000 odd he gave her for multiple funerals. She didn't show up to contest the claim.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Top