Possibly - but more than likely there is an understandable bias against Rugby League players which make it more likely for the Police to believe people when making allegations against them. Understandable when you consider past cases and the fact that these guys are incredibly strong and play a violent sport. (I'm not saying it is right - just I can see how conclusions are reached)
There is also a political pressure to ensure that claims are followed up on. Baring in mind the fact there is so much domestic violence in Australia and the fact that one woman dies every single week in Australia at the hands of someone she knows, this is not a bad thing. The fact the court case actually proceeded however does demonstrate a lack of judgement by the Police and the prosecution service.
If only other people with far better claims were taken as seriously by the authorities.
Regarding your first paragraph, do you honestly think that because SKD is a Rugby League player, that it influenced their decision on whether he gets charged or not? Come on. It's no like Police think of Rugby League players to be in organised crime.
There was evidence which implicated SKD for 11 domestic violence offences. That's huge. There was also injuries that she took photos of wasn't there?
With all that, it would be negligent not to bring the matter before the courts. If it wasn't, it'd be seen along the lines of Victorian Police protecting AFL players.
And how was there a lack on judgement from the Police for proceeding with this? Oh SKD denied it? Someone accused of a crime denies it? That's a first? Oh of course, her mother did some dodgy things in the past. Of course all children are the same at their parents. Oh she approached the Roosters for compensation? Of course, the Police knew that before.
If Police wanted to make a headline, there are alot more interesting stories they could release than this.
