Junior Amone free to play in 2023

[The Silverdale Phantom]

Sounds like his barrister is another re-incarnation of Baldrick.

Wasn’t on the roof?

That’s a cunning plan.

 

[The Silverdale Phantom]

if he’s done it then a deal with the coppers.

He would have got 25% discount for a plea, then do a mental health application, Get a shrink to say he was suffering from something at the time of the event, bang him in rehab or something.

Now I guess he’s got to argue that the victim didn’t recognise him?

Or are we to accept the proposition that roofie (still alleged)victim was looking somewhere else but at the person swinging a hammer at him forcing him

Maybe he was admiring the flashing on the guttering while young mate was chasing him.

 

[Centralcoastdragon2]

It will take 2 days to collect info. Then a decision on the charges if any. Won't end pretty.

 

[Coffs dragon]

Hope his defence holds up better in court than on the field.

 

[The Silverdale Phantom]

Sounds like Baldrick SC is fishing for some kind of bizarro technicality to me.

Roofie doesn’t identify our man until after the fact, but neither would 99% of people.

I’d suggest people often don’t know their assailants names until after the event. Muggers usually don’t wear a hat with their name in bright neon lights or text you afterwards identifying themselves.

Memory serves from that video capture, him and his mate weren’t dressed exactly the same either.

Seems to me that Junior won’t be called to give evidence if they running a tech case.

If he’s found guilty, I can’t see how he isn’t going away.

If the court is taken by this unusual ID argument, I wonder if the prosecution can or will appeal? I don’t know.

it’s a lot of wasted cash and resources either way. A bad decision of some kind, whatever he’s done, just takes seconds to get overwhelmed by a temper or cajoled or influenced.

I bet he would give almost anything to have been away from home that day.

What’s in everyone’s best interests is that he stays out of the side and turns his thoughts and energy to his case. It’s not a trial run.

The players don’t need the distraction.

The season is gone like ours.

And Carr can pontificate all he wants about welfare, but there’s a victim in this who was almost killed regardless of happens to Amone.

What about roofies welfare and respect for the process?

Carr is your typical league hack. Live in a bubble. We’d give amone the captaincy probably, so I’m not having a shot at sgi per se.

And Baldrick, didn’t Amone turn himself in? A consciousness of guilt of something…?

If he wasn’t on the roof, he could have told the cops that at the interview. Maybe he did?


An unusual defence in the circumstances.

Junior is innocent right now. Important to keep that in mind and fair enough.

 

[getsmarty]

NRL star not present at time of alleged hammer attack, defence argues

Star St George Illawarra player Junior Amone has been accused of chasing a tradesman across a roof with a hammer but is arguing a case of mistaken identity.

www.abc.net.au

 

[TheRev]

jesus its an all or nothing play.. seems like police didnt follow procedure.. and he may get off scott-free, but if it backfires and he gets shown for lieing on stand.. yikes.

 

[The Silverdale Phantom]

Some of Baldrick SC arguments:

Witnesses cant live together is that right?

Well that pretty much wipes out any family who has been subject to a home invasion while they’ve been there.

The alleged bikie threat, somehow that justifies a violent response?

They don’t even need a police line up to prove ID.

On the other hand, not giving access to a lawyer, I think that is quite serious andan “ oversight” doesn’t cut it for mine.

Let’s have a look at what might be being argued;

Source Act:


And section:




Did the cop think we were living in Nazi Germany? Really basic arrest law. How could they screw this up?!!

link

https://legislation.nsw.gov.au/view/whole/html/inforce/current/act-2002-103

Mmm.

 

[2218]

Sounds like Baldrick SC is fishing for some kind of bizarro technicality to me.

Roofie doesn’t identify our man until after the fact, but neither would 99% of people.

I’d suggest people often don’t know their assailants names until after the event. Muggers usually don’t wear a hat with their name in bright neon lights or text you afterwards identifying themselves.

Memory serves from that video capture, him and his mate weren’t dressed exactly the same either.

Seems to me that Junior won’t be called to give evidence if they running a tech case.

If he’s found guilty, I can’t see how he isn’t going away.

If the court is taken by this unusual ID argument, I wonder if the prosecution can or will appeal? I don’t know.

it’s a lot of wasted cash and resources either way. A bad decision of some kind, whatever he’s done, just takes seconds to get overwhelmed by a temper or cajoled or influenced.

I bet he would give almost anything to have been away from home that day.

What’s in everyone’s best interests is that he stays out of the side and turns his thoughts and energy to his case. It’s not a trial run.

The players don’t need the distraction.

The season is gone like ours.

And Carr can pontificate all he wants about welfare, but there’s a victim in this who was almost killed regardless of happens to Amone.

What about roofies welfare and respect for the process?

Carr is your typical league hack. Live in a bubble. We’d give amone the captaincy probably, so I’m not having a shot at sgi per se.

And Baldrick, didn’t Amone turn himself in? A consciousness of guilt of something…?

If he wasn’t on the roof, he could have told the cops that at the interview. Maybe he did?

View attachment 78201
An unusual defence in the circumstances.

Junior is innocent right now. Important to keep that in mind and fair enough.

Not an unusual defense at all. Identification is a tricky process for the investigators and the defence knows this. Happens a lot.

 

[The Silverdale Phantom]

Not an unusual defense at all. Identification is a tricky process for the investigators and the defence knows this. Happens a lot.

Stats?!

In this case, i think he’s more likely than not to have been identified by Roofie and other evidence, so I think it’s very unusual, so I’m surprised with this, but:

Anyway what say you about the LEPRA issue?

Officer apparently breaches the Act, what do you say happens to the Police case?

If I’m the prosecutor I’m nervous!

I’ll try and find some cases for the panel here later.

Baldrick may have found a yam!

 

[2218]

That could be a whole range of circumstances but I doubt that a bloke of such a high profile (or anyone to be honest) would be denied legal reps. If by any reason this was denied or it was an oversight, it could be argued by defence to have evidence obtained whilst he was in custody deemed as inadmissible

 

[The Silverdale Phantom]

jesus its an all or nothing play.. seems like police didnt follow procedure.. and he may get off scott-free, but if it backfires and he gets shown for lieing on stand.. yikes.

great post.

He won’t be called.

What’s his evidence going to be?

Abducted by aliens and a chameleon shapeshifter takes his place?

 

[The Silverdale Phantom]

That could be a whole range of circumstances but I doubt that a bloke of such a high profile (or anyone to be honest) would be denied legal reps. If by any reason this was denied or it was an oversight, it could be argued by defence to have evidence obtained whilst he was in custody deemed as inadmissible

Thanks

What happens to evidence that is obtained when he isn’t in custody or doesn’t relate to him being custody?

Such as Mr Kings statement, video footage etc?

Does that survive the process?

Do you think it could be game over for the prosecution case?

 

[2218]

That evidence just like any evidence that might of been obtained whilst in custody can be argued to its admissibility. From the little information i have of the case id say its a coin flip.

 

[2218]

Stats?!

In this case, i think he’s more likely than not to have been identified by Roofie and other evidence, so I think it’s very unusual, so I’m surprised with this, but:

Anyway what say you about the LEPRA issue?

Officer apparently breaches the Act, what do you say happens to the Police case?

If I’m the prosecutor I’m nervous!

I’ll try and find some cases for the panel here later.

Baldrick may have found a yam!

Stats of what? The times an identification defence is raised? If thats what your after im not sure that statistic would be recorded anywhere. However unless an offender is arrested at the scene or shortly after the police have to use investigation methods that comply with the identification act. This act can be a minefield so it would be unusual for a defense not to contest the admissablity of how the defense identified an accused.

 

[The Silverdale Phantom]

That evidence just like any evidence that might of been obtained whilst in custody can be argued to its admissibility. From the little information i have of the case id say its a coin flip.

Thanks.

I’m just thinking that he wouldn’t have said much while in custody.

 

[The Silverdale Phantom]

Stats of what? The times an identification defence is raised? If thats what you’re after im not sure that statistic would be recorded anywhere. However unless an offender is arrested at the scene or shortly after the police have to use investigation methods that comply with the identification act. This act can be a minefield so it would be unusual for a defense not to contest the admissablity of how the defense identified an accused.

My reading was that you were positing that Id cases were common but I would suggest most cases aren’t about identification but about proving elements and defences.

 

[2218]

My reading was that you were positing that Id cases were common but I would suggest most cases aren’t about identification but about proving elements and defences.

Have a look at most proofs of an offence. The first proof is an accused. To establish that proof you must comply with the identification act. If you cannot prove an accused the matter falls over. Thats why its usually the first thing defence will scrutinise

 

[The Silverdale Phantom]

Have a look at most proofs of an offence. The first proof is an accused. To establish that proof you must comply with the identification act. If you cannot prove an accused the matter falls over. Thats why its usually the first thing defence will scrutinise

Cool.

Whats the official name of the identification act?

 

[Centralcoastdragon2]

If they did nothing wrong why not identify the third person. His statement would help them if they were innocent. Not offering access to a lawyer is a serious issue.