Shaun Kenny-Dowall not guilty of assaulting former partner Jess Peris

[ek999]

Then the charges will be thrown out. If there is a good chance of a verdict, then the charge will go to court.

It will go to court anyway. He will turn up on Thursday, plead not guilty (as he has indicated he will) and it will be adjourned to a later date, probably a few months time. Look at Jennings case today - he has entered a plea of not guilty and his case will now not be heard until September 20. Are you saying that SKD should not be allowed to play for the rest of the season when he may not have actually done anything wrong?

 

[Penrose Warrior]

http://www.territorystories.nt.gov.au/bitstream/10070/239960/3/ntn02apr12003x.pdf

So what happened to the allegations that Jah Coe pushed Peris, choked her and then struck her with a toolbox?

The final judgement appears to be about a threat and destroying property.

Actions I read out of that article: Peris cheated on Coe, and struck him with a powerboard. He never at any time struck her, broke a couple of phones and threatened to smack her face.

He's fined $500, she faces no charges at all for physical violence on him? And gets to say she was scared by an action that was a lot less than the one she's just committed?

Wow. Seems fair.

What a bullshit circus our court system can be sometimes.

If anyone doesn't want to jump to any conclusions about what this woman can do, fine. But I will based on that case, her bat shit insane mother and the character of SKD which has, to this point in life, been flawless.

 

[redvscotty]

Yeah, but what about the sex toys found on the road?

 

[bileduct]

Then the charges will be thrown out. If there is a good chance of a verdict, then the charge will go to court.

Answer the question I asked.

 

[firechild]

Actions I read out of that article: Peris cheated on Coe, and struck him with a powerboard. He never at any time struck her, broke a couple of phones and threatened to smack her face.

He's fined $500, she faces no charges at all for physical violence on him? And gets to say she was scared by an action that was a lot less than the one she's just committed?

Wow. Seems fair.

What a bullshit circus our court system can be sometimes.

If anyone doesn't want to jump to any conclusions about what this woman can do, fine. But I will based on that case, her bat shit insane mother and the character of SKD which has, to this point in life, been flawless.

The system is a farce. If a woman commits an act of violence against a man and then goes to police to make a complaint, the police WILL NOT lay charges against the woman. It's not even about the courts, the courts can only take action based on the charges in front of them. It's the police who are so afraid to look like they are going against the claims of an alleged female victim.

 

[bileduct]

Actions I read out of that article: Peris cheated on Coe, and struck him with a powerboard. He never at any time struck her, broke a couple of phones and threatened to smack her face.

He's fined $500, she faces no charges at all for physical violence on him? And gets to say she was scared by an action that was a lot less than the one she's just committed?

Wow. Seems fair.

What a bullshit circus our court system can be sometimes.

If anyone doesn't want to jump to any conclusions about what this woman can do, fine. But I will based on that case, her bat shit insane mother and the character of SKD which has, to this point in life, been flawless.

I'm agreeing with you that this is a bullshit circus.

From those two articles it appears that the previous case started off with allegations of physical abuse including choking (in front of a child) but then by the end of it all the guy only gets convicted of making a threat and for smashing two mobile phones while Jessica herself is shown to be the instigator of physical violence.

As I said before, this woman has form and experience.

 

[El Diablo]

I'm agreeing with you that this is a bullshit circus.

From those two articles it appears that the previous case started off with allegations of physical abuse including choking (in front of a child) but then by the end of it all the guy only gets convicted of making a threat and for smashing two mobile phones while Jessica herself is shown to be the instigator of physical violence.

As I said before, this woman has form and experience.

doesn't mean that the latest allegations are not true

 

[Nice Beaver]

Then the charges will be thrown out. If there is a good chance of a verdict, then the charge will go to court.

Yeah, like the Brett Stewart case :roll:

That was a farce and went to court. There is no way you can ban a player who is pleading not guilty to the charges.

 

[bileduct]

doesn't mean that the latest allegations are not true

That's why we have a judicial system.

 

[Lambretta]

SKD expected to plead not guilty

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...mas-to-beat-warriors-240-20150719-giflhe.html

If that's the case - then I'd err on the side of caution and allow him to play

But as a club, the Roosters need to be as sure as they can of his innocence if they're going to stand by him

 

[Shorty]

You most definitely can.
I have seen it, someone I knew tried to set someone up. Thankfully it didn't work

I've also seen it go the other way, twice actually.
Lol I'm not sure if this thread is full of people that don't get out much but there are 10 counts and some of them require some substance.

 

[firechild]

I've also seen it go the other way, twice actually.
Lol I'm not sure if this thread is full of people that don't get out much but there are 10 counts and some of them require some substance.

Go and sit in on some court cases and see how much it opens your eyes.

I've seen a case with multiple charges (not quite 10 but getting there) supported by photographic evidence, witnesses, etc, get dismissed and described by the magistrate as "impossible". The hearing was such a farce that the prosecutor was forced to make up a possible scenario during cross examination not consistent with any of the prosecutions witnesses evidence because even they had conceded that the facts before the court could not be true.

 

[Shorty]

Go and sit in on some court cases and see how much it opens your eyes.

I've seen a case with multiple charges (not quite 10 but getting there) supported by photographic evidence, witnesses, etc, get dismissed and described by the magistrate as "impossible". The hearing was such a farce that the prosecutor was forced to make up a possible scenario during cross examination not consistent with any of the prosecutions witnesses evidence because even they had conceded that the facts before the court could not be true.

Lol I have moron, just because it doesn't suit your agenda.
Either way if it is innocent until proven guilty, perhaps extend that to Jessica as well.

 

[Valheru]

Maybe I'm jumping the gun in condemning but when I read the report that it was a number of incidents, spread over a period of time and the Police had a number of incriminating text messages for harassment I guess I saw red

Has the club actually made a statement as to their belief around his guilt or innocence?

If he is innocent and loudly claiming so, then usually a statement is made straight away that the whole thing is slander

I haven't seen anything along those lines - just that he wasn't mentally right to play at the moment

If he says he is completely innocent and says he wants to fight the charges, then I would support his playing until the outcome of the court case (if one eventuates) is known. Otherwise, he would need to step down.

Yeah but texts are a far cry from actual physical abuse. Without knowing the exact details of the break up and any provocation either side may have had it?s hard to make judgement on a couple of text messages.

To answer your question re: the club, the only information I have seen was when the media got wind of the fact an AVO was going to be lodged. In that article it stated the club AND the NRL had been aware for some weeks that SKD has been going through a nasty breakup involving a dispute of money post de facto relationship. Given this, I think it?s safe to assume the club is taking SKD?s side of things at face value.

 

[firechild]

Lol I have moron, just because it doesn't suit your agenda.
Either way if it is innocent until proven guilty, perhaps extend that to Jessica as well.

My agenda? Allowing the judicial system to run its course before making judgement on the bloke? Yep, I need to justify that "agenda".

Clearly you're ready to have him hung, drawn and quartered despite knowing nothing about the evidence that the prosecution has. I've said nothing about Jessica, all I've said is that vindictive people can use the law to try to get their way. It doesn't usually work out how they want but it can work out for them in the interim where family law matters are being heard.

 

[Valheru]

Lol I have moron, just because it doesn't suit your agenda.
Either way if it is innocent until proven guilty, perhaps extend that to Jessica as well.

Jessica hasn't been charged with anything and any allegations SKD has against her have not been made public so what exactly are we presuming innocence for?

 

[Lambretta]

Yeah but texts are a far cry from actual physical abuse. Without knowing the exact details of the break up and any provocation either side may have had it?s hard to make judgement on a couple of text messages.

To answer your question re: the club, the only information I have seen was when the media got wind of the fact an AVO was going to be lodged. In that article it stated the club AND the NRL had been aware for some weeks that SKD has been going through a nasty breakup involving a dispute of money post de facto relationship. Given this, I think it?s safe to assume the club is taking SKD?s side of things at face value.

Really? I hadn't read any of this. Thanks for informing me.

Whenever there is money involved I take everything anyone says with a pinch of salt.

I'm not going to comment further one way or the other until after the matter is resolved / dropped / goes to court

 

[Sea_Eagles_Rock]

No idea what will happen here. It is a little different to Brett Stewart in that this is a relationship and as such may have a longer history than a one off alleged incident. As far as I am concerned though, if we have taken anything away from the Stewart scenario, it is not to allow the judicial system processes and media hype to grow beyond the rights of the individual.

Innocence is to be maintained as long as a 'NOT GUILTY' position is taken, unless the club feels there is a reason not to stand by the player to play through the allegation. That may mean they do not feel he is mentally up to playing. Standing down needs to be a club/player decision as long as a 'not guilty' position is taken. You can't stop the media from doing their thing. The victim, if there is actually one, will have their chance should the case proceed. If the allegations are extreme I'm sure the police will take things into their own hands.

Hopefully the NRL has a clear policy on how this is to be handled now. Consistency is the key here. They need to communicate the policy to the media and stick by it each time. I hope they get it right this time.

 

[ek999]

No idea what will happen here. It is a little different to Brett Stewart in that this is a relationship and as such may have a longer history than a one off alleged incident. As far as I am concerned though, if we have taken anything away from the Stewart scenario, it is not to allow the judicial system processes and media hype to grow beyond the rights of the individual.

Innocence is to be maintained as long as a 'NOT GUILTY' position is taken, unless the club feels there is a reason not to stand by the player to play through the allegation. That may mean they do not feel he is mentally up to playing. Standing down needs to be a club/player decision as long as a 'not guilty' position is taken. You can't stop the media from doing their thing. The victim, if there is actually one, will have their chance should the case proceed. If the allegations are extreme I'm sure the police will take things into their own hands.

Hopefully the NRL has a clear policy on how this is to be handled now. Consistency is the key here. They need to communicate the policy to the media and stick by it each time. I hope they get it right this time.

Thankfully we have Dave Smith in charge now and not Gallop so it looks like it will be handled a lot better than the clusterf**k that was the Brett Stewart situation

"We won't comment on any case that is in the criminal justice system, and nor should we because I have got faith in the criminal justice system and I wouldn't want to prejudice any player or any person who is in that situation," Smith told Fairfax Media. "But my stance is unambiguous on domestic violence, and anything to do with violence against women or violence in general we are unambiguous. There is no place for it in the game. We don't think anybody should suffer domestic violence, and I think we have been unambiguous in the way that we have responded when any player is found guilty of these sort of things. I cannot be clearer that it is something we just won't tolerate and anybody found guilty can expect very harsh treatment."

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...c-violence-20150719-gifpur.html#ixzz3gPZNiSSM
​

 

[Penrose Warrior]

I'm agreeing with you that this is a bullshit circus.

From those two articles it appears that the previous case started off with allegations of physical abuse including choking (in front of a child) but then by the end of it all the guy only gets convicted of making a threat and for smashing two mobile phones while Jessica herself is shown to be the instigator of physical violence.

As I said before, this woman has form and experience.

So whilst I'm not a law expert, we should really only pay any heed to the threats, smashing the phones and the Peris hitting him with the powerboard, not the choking accusations right?

Based on this woman's history, if SKD tells the Roosters he's innocent, absolutely he continues to play. A player cannot miss weeks of football and have his name rolled through the mud - as it will be every week he doesn't play - if there is not sufficient evidence to suggest he should be stood down, especially if he has no prior form and she does.