Mega Thread Hird Appeal dismissed by Full bench of the Federal Court 30/1- Hird will not appeal. Details in OP.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jul 2, 2010
37,953
36,136
Adelaide
AFL Club
Carlton
It might be unpopular, but I can understand a little bit of where Hardie is/might be coming from. It's probably completely inaccurate from a legal perspective, but from a common sense position it is a question in my mind.

If the basis for the courts ruling is that the AFL contract of employment forces/compels someone to give information up and therefore there is no grounds for appeal - is there a point at which the basic legal principles (against self incrimination, confidential information etc) override the AFL contract. Or could you be 'forced' (in order to get a job) to sign away your basic rights just to get work in your chosen field.

Now - this is just from a very distant view (possibly involving the Hubble Telescope) - it doesn't take into account the fact there were lawyers present at the interviews etc etc - and there is probably a s**t load more to it...

And possibly I've completely mis-understood Hardies objection - but it has raised an interesting thought bubble in my head....

The problem is the Full bench couldnt rule for or against the AFL contract side of things, because it wasnt brought up at the initial trial, thus only leaving them to rule on the validity of the investigation.
 

flinchfree

Premiership Player
Jan 30, 2014
4,006
9,125
AFL Club
Hawthorn
It might be unpopular, but I can understand a little bit of where Hardie is/might be coming from. It's probably completely inaccurate from a legal perspective, but from a common sense position it is a question in my mind.

If the basis for the courts ruling is that the AFL contract of employment forces/compels someone to give information up and therefore there is no grounds for appeal - is there a point at which the basic legal principles (against self incrimination, confidential information etc) override the AFL contract. Or could you be 'forced' (in order to get a job) to sign away your basic rights just to get work in your chosen field.

Now - this is just from a very distant view (possibly involving the Hubble Telescope) - it doesn't take into account the fact there were lawyers present at the interviews etc etc - and there is probably a s**t load more to it...

And possibly I've completely mis-understood Hardies objection - but it has raised an interesting thought bubble in my head....


Ahh, I think you missed the story. You know, the self reporting part, the voluntary interviews, the legal representation, etc. etc. etc.
Essendon only 'claimed' coersion of sorts after the fact, the fact that they saw they were suddenly in the deep deep poo.
 
Can someone please précis his comments?
The... the... *sob*... ASADA investigation was fully legal, James Hird... *crying* did not get a single win. I don't... *grumble*... see him contesting to the high court.
 

Bluesince62

Club Legend
Jul 5, 2012
1,499
1,314
South of the Yarra
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Wolverhampton Wanderers WADA ASADA
The problem is the Full bench couldnt rule for or against the AFL contract side of things, because it wasnt brought up at the initial trial, thus only leaving them to rule on the validity of the investigation.
Basically it was a big slapdown of the lawyers. You d-heads should have tried that angle at trial and now it is too late. Hird may well sue his lawyers for stuffing that up.
 

BlueWorld

Norm Smith Medallist
Oct 8, 2004
7,168
3,107
melbourne
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Carlton
Just read Justin Kenny's verdict and as a tafe graduate with a diploma in Legal Studies, I don't see how they (the 3 judges) came to their conclusion.

Hope we challenge, think we stand a good chance.
Well I'm sure that a tafe graduate with a diploma in Legal Studies must make you better qualified than 4 Federal court judges.:rolleyes:

So far you've suffered 2 resounding defeats but if you think you should and stand a chance, why wouldn't you.
 
Last edited:

mxett

Brownlow Medallist
Jul 1, 2007
25,767
11,926
Melbourne
AFL Club
Essendon
Gloating is a natural response of most of the boards after the EFC and its fans have effectively said "stick your rules up your #%^*" ever since they were outed for... wait for it... systematic doping followed by systematic denial followed by systematic delusions of innocence. Gloat away fans!
what about generalising?
 
Oct 7, 2007
11,151
14,183
Perth
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
East Freo, Liverpool, Cardinals
Just read Justin Kenny's verdict and as a tafe graduate with a diploma in Legal Studies, I don't see how they (the 3 judges) came to their conclusion.

Hope we challenge, think we stand a good chance.

Still think you're better qualified than the sea kayaker
 

BlueWorld

Norm Smith Medallist
Oct 8, 2004
7,168
3,107
melbourne
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Carlton
It might be unpopular, but I can understand a little bit of where Hardie is/might be coming from. It's probably completely inaccurate from a legal perspective, but from a common sense position it is a question in my mind.

If the basis for the courts ruling is that the AFL contract of employment forces/compels someone to give information up and therefore there is no grounds for appeal - is there a point at which the basic legal principles (against self incrimination, confidential information etc) override the AFL contract. Or could you be 'forced' (in order to get a job) to sign away your basic rights just to get work in your chosen field.

Now - this is just from a very distant view (possibly involving the Hubble Telescope) - it doesn't take into account the fact there were lawyers present at the interviews etc etc - and there is probably a s**t load more to it...

And possibly I've completely mis-understood Hardies objection - but it has raised an interesting thought bubble in my head....
The AFL contract was never argued. It is not the basis for the court's ruling. All parties accepted the AFL contract. And yes lawyers were present and never questioned it.
 
Sep 21, 2002
52,638
46,330
Adelaide
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Norwood
Just read Justin Kenny's verdict and as a tafe graduate with a diploma in Legal Studies, I don't see how they (the 3 judges) came to their conclusion.

Hope we challenge, think we stand a good chance.

Well, for a start, the judges aren't one-eyed Essendon supporters with a fanatical devotion to James Hird. That allows one to see more clearly.

A good chance :D.
 

STFU Donnie

Norm Smith Medallist
Jul 31, 2012
5,417
8,493
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Everton, Chiefs Kingdom
Well I'm sure that tafe graduate with a diploma in Legal Studies must make you better qualified than 4 Federal court judges.:rolleyes:

So far you've suffered 2 resounding defeats but if you think you should and stand a chance, why wouldn't you.

Well, he couldn't do any worse than the shower advising Hird at the moment.
 

STFU Donnie

Norm Smith Medallist
Jul 31, 2012
5,417
8,493
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Everton, Chiefs Kingdom
Well, for a start, the judges aren't one-eyed Essendon supporters with a fanatical devotion to James Hird. That allows one to see more clearly.

A good chance :D.

You simply can't get too many (however subtle) references to the Spanish Inquisition. Well done Sir.
 
Oct 7, 2007
11,151
14,183
Perth
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
East Freo, Liverpool, Cardinals
Well I'm sure that a tafe graduate with a diploma in Legal Studies must make you better qualified than 4 Federal court judges.:rolleyes:

So far you've suffered 2 resounding defeats but if you think you should and stand a chance, why wouldn't you.

I think he's taking the mick. I laughed...was clever!
 
What I can't get over, and I haven't been watching this as closely as many here, but if they'd 'fessed up in the first place, chances are this would all be behind us, sentences served and a PR campaign underway to rehabilitate the club's image. Seems to me EFC backed the wrong horse.
 

flinchfree

Premiership Player
Jan 30, 2014
4,006
9,125
AFL Club
Hawthorn
The Full Court rejects Mr Hird's submissions about lack of 'free consent' and that there was no waiver of privilege," Justice Kenny said.
"The primary judge found, and it was not disputed, that, upon becoming a player or official, Mr Hird and the 34 players voluntarily accepted the obligations under the AFL's player rules and anti-doping code to attend interviews and answer questions fully and truthfully (we shall see), or face possible sanction by the AFL. Mr Hird and the 34 players were all legally represented at their interviews.
"They also knew that the AFL was invoking the compulsory powers conferred by its player rules and its anti-doping code when it required answers to the interview questions.
"No one objected to answering any question, whether on the ground that its answer might incriminate him or expose him to a civil penalty, or otherwise."

Case closed.
 

Muggs

Premiership Player
Jan 16, 2015
4,048
5,985
Your local dark alley
AFL Club
Adelaide
It might be unpopular, but I can understand a little bit of where Hardie is/might be coming from. It's probably completely inaccurate from a legal perspective, but from a common sense position it is a question in my mind.

If the basis for the courts ruling is that the AFL contract of employment forces/compels someone to give information up and therefore there is no grounds for appeal - is there a point at which the basic legal principles (against self incrimination, confidential information etc) override the AFL contract. Or could you be 'forced' (in order to get a job) to sign away your basic rights just to get work in your chosen field.

Now - this is just from a very distant view (possibly involving the Hubble Telescope) - it doesn't take into account the fact there were lawyers present at the interviews etc etc - and there is probably a s**t load more to it...

And possibly I've completely mis-understood Hardies objection - but it has raised an interesting thought bubble in my head....

See where you coming from, but think it has more to do with the fact that Hird accepted these in the first hearing and the disputed them in the second.

The appeal court basically said we can't deal with this as it's not actually a finding of the first court - basically mate you can't try a completely different argument on appeal to what you did in your first hearing if you stuffed up the first time. Based on what you presented the first time the verdict was correct.

Maybe this provides ground for a high court challenge, but if Hardie is correct its Hirds lawyers fault for not using that argument for the original hearing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back