The truth and hearsay in the Kirisome Auva’a case
“There can be no higher law in journalism than to tell the truth and to shame the devil.”
Walter Lippmann
It is a sad indictment of the Australian media when a member of the public feels obliged to contribute to the news cycle through an article of their own in a desperate attempt to inject balance into the public domain.
The Kirisome Auva’a case has ignited accusations against the NRL of cover-up and ambivalence toward domestic violence. Such a perception has been crafted not by meticulous facts and balance of reporting, but by their absence.
It is only through these fundamental qualities that the Fourth Estate separates itself from the unacquainted voices of the masses, voices upon which are consequently formed by and reliant on this same institution perceived to be legitimate.
It is in the spirit of this foundation that I will attempt to present a series of facts upon which others may judge to form a unadulterated conclusion on the weeks events.
On the 28th of May 2014 Kirisome Auva’a pleaded guilty in a Victorian court to charges of Recklessly Cause Injury and Criminal Damage (Intent Damage/Destroy) for an incident which occurred in January of this year. The player informed his club, South Sydney, of the incident on the 18th of January and the club subsequently fined him $2000 and suspended him from training for one week.
The Rabbitohs issued a press release on the 28th of May to confirm Auva’a’s guilty plea and state that the court proceeding had been adjourned by the magistrate for six months until November 7, during which time Auva’a would be compelled to follow the court’s instructions.
This was not made in secret and including South Sydney’s press release, was widely reported at the time of the plea.
It is now important to note the NRL’s obligations enshrined in the NRL Code of Conduct relating to Criminal Proceedings.
Rule 46, sub-Rule (1) states “(w)here the breach of a provision of this Code involving a Player or a Club has occurred, and the conduct constituting that breach is the subject of a investigation or criminal proceeding, the Chief Executive Officer shall not against that Player or Club Official pursuant to Part 2 of the NRL Rules until the conclusion of that investigation or proceeding, as the case may be, unless the Chief Executive Officer forms the view, in his absolute discretion, that it is appropriate to do so.”
Rule 46 continues in sub-Rule (2) which states “(t)o remove any doubt: The purpose of sub-Rule (1) is to ensure, so far as possible, that any criminal proceedings against a Player or Club Official are taken and concluded before proceedings for the breach of a provision of this Code are commenced.”
The NRL is bound not to intervene with a penalty under the Code of Conduct while a player is the subject of a open court proceeding, as was the case with Kirisome Auva’a. Auva’a despite pleading guilty on May 28, had his court proceeding adjourned until Friday November 7.
While the code does allow for discretion from the NRL CEO to sanction a player before a court proceeding has concluded, it would be inappropriate in a case such as Auva’a’s where the NRL does not have access to court documents to determine an adequate penalty based on the crime Auva’a had pleaded guilty to.
Such ambiguity in detail would leave the NRL open to future accusations of being either too lenient or too harsh once sentencing has concluded and full details of the case are disclosed to the NRL.
A preemptive penalty by the NRL also has the potential to prejudice the sentencing process. These enshrined rules within the NRL Code of Conduct are designed to protect both the NRL and the players and is a crucial element in any serious evaluation of the appropriateness of the NRL’s response to a player found guilty of domestic violence.
With the court proceedings now concluded, and the NRL free to pursue a penalty against Auva’a, the NRL have been accused of playing catch-up.
However, any examination of the sequence of events since Friday’s sentencing concluded suggests, rather than being provoked into action by the media, the NRL were already anticipating a penalty by arranging discussions with South Sydney to consult on a sanction.
As reported by the Daily Telegraph’s James Hooper on the eighth of November, the day after court proceedings had finalised, “(t)he NRL wants to meet South Sydney officials to discuss further sanctions, with the governing body to consider suspending Auva’a from matches next season and issuing a further fine.”
Clearly it is a statement at odds with reporting from the Daily Telegraph’s Phil Rothfield in the days that followed, which accused the NRL of ignoring domestic violence and insinuating a cover-up.
This article was only intended to bring balance and detail to a story that has severely lacked it. It is up to the public to come to their own conclusions based on the entirety of the facts, do they want expediency or do they want due process.
The reporting on the case has highlighted a demise of journalistic ethics in some corners at a time when the fragmentation of information sources is greater than ever before, The Roar is but only one example.
Perceived legitimacy is the market advantage of the traditional print media in a highly competitive online market for news and information.
However, if the public is to continue to view Australia’s traditional print media as legitimate in the future it has to be able to trust what they are reading is balanced, truthful and accurate. Anything short of that and it is the end of a once great institution.
http://www.theroar.com.au/2014/11/14/the-truth-and-hearsay-in-the-kirisome-auvaa-case/
