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

[The_Wookie]

And to you Wook. I wouldn't have wanted to try keep this mob informed and in line.

Oddly enough the board tends to behave itself in these live coverage threads. I assume because people know that mods are definitely active in them. All the same everyone contributes to these threads being great, and its much appreciated.

 

[Muggs]

I cannot believe what you are saying. YOU have read Kenny's decision and "Think we stand a good chance". I will put my money on three judges with at least 30 years experience against your piece a paper "justice studies". You have to be taking the p..s. Surely.

The issue is that Hird's primary arguement this time was not even listened to, he tried a different argument this time to what he tried the first time, and the appeal court rightly chastised him for it and did not pay much attention to it.

The appeal court basically said we agree with Middleton on the case presented to him, and cant change your argument on appeal. They were largely silent on the validity of the new arguement Hird tried to use.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

I think he's actually serious. You do know this poster?

jesus h.

You get better and better

 

[The_Wookie]

However, Hird could yet take his case to the High Court of Australia and has 28 days to decide whether he will.

3AW Football's Mick Warner said on Sports Today that was still every chance of happening.

"It's a possibility," he said.

"He certainly wouldn't take public perception into account making that decision.

"I think he's in mind of the fact that 95 per cent of the people out there have had a gutful of him and of Essendon.

"So that's an option for him."

Warner said the Federal Court hearing was "almost a free roll of the dice" for Hird.

"It probably cost him $60,000, maybe $100,000, to go… it was only a two-day hearing," Warner explained.

"It would cost him that again if he went to the High Court.

"The reason you wouldn't rule it out is, again, if you've already spent $500-600,000 you probably would spend another $100,000 for another roll of the dice."

http://www.3aw.com.au/news/james-hi...sed-by-the-federal-court-20150130-1325sm.html

 

[expires]

"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.

That's where Middleton erred as well. The players not objecting doesn't make the process legit. The high court would never use that standard of justification for a decision about whether a statutory body had followed process. Poor old James. He will know that it is the best interest of the nation to go to the High Court. But he has so much else to do.

Case open.

 

[Oneiros]

http://www.3aw.com.au/news/james-hi...sed-by-the-federal-court-20150130-1325sm.html

Think he's well off the mark with those costs estimates, especially in light of Natalie Hickey's tweets.

 

[BlueWorld]

When or where did he say that exactly?

Forget it.

 

[MagpieJo]

Is this where I can gloat about adelaide already having signed up 50,000?

Is that all?

 

[Oneiros]

That's where Middleton erred as well. The players not objecting doesn't make the process legit. The high court would never use that standard of justification for a decision about whether a statutory body had followed process. Poor old James. He will know that it is the best interest of the nation to go to the High Court. But he has so much else to do.

Case open.

Fancy your chances of catching anything?

 

[Chameleon75]

Oddly enough the board tends to behave itself in these live coverage threads. I assume because people know that mods are definitely active in them. All the same everyone contributes to these threads being great, and its much appreciated.

maybe because there's actually something to talk about other than the usual circular arguments.

 

[BlueWorld]

jesus h.

You get better and better

As do you.

 

[jenny61_99]

Is that all?

More than we had this time last year! If Essendon is on target for a record breaking 65,000, adelaide must be going to hit 75,000!!!

 

[imperial_oz]

I think he's actually serious. You do know this poster?

Hope not

 

[Ancient Tiger]

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....

It only takes away their right to silence when it comes to doping. This is because it is a provision of the AFL anti doping policy that players must abide by.
It doesn't affect any other area of their contract.

So in the end, what is so wrong with having to tell the truth when it comes to PED use? Why be able to say nothing and possibly get an unfair advantage over players that play by the rules? And yeah , I don't buy the fact they were offered a sweetener and tricked into telling all. If telling all is the truth, then they should have said it anyway.

 

[The_Wookie]

That's where Middleton erred as well. The players not objecting doesn't make the process legit. The high court would never use that standard of justification for a decision about whether a statutory body had followed process. Poor old James. He will know that it is the best interest of the nation to go to the High Court. But he has so much else to do.

Case open.

Its where Essendon, Hird and the players screwed up. Either they gave it up voluntarily in which case there is literally no case, or the AFL rules forced them to, in which case that should have been the subject of the initial trial. At no stage in the initial trial was the unfairness of the contract introduced by any party, and the full bench couldnt hear the arguments as a result. An appeal to the high court isnt likely to get traction for the same reason - the club, the players and the coach screwed up at the begining of the trial.

 

[Oneiros]

Hope not

He was fairly strongly referencing jokes related to a particular Essendon board poster, you can take as read that he was taking the mickey/casting out a line!

 

[Nightowl]

Well I'm sure that a tafe graduate with a diploma in Legal Studies must make you better qualified than 4 Federal court judges.

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

But but but.. he's a TAFE GRADUATE ! aren't you impressed ?

 

[Oneiros]

Its where Essendon, Hird and the players screwed up. Either they gave it up voluntarily in which case there is literally no case, or the AFL rules forced them to, in which case that should have been the subject of the initial trial. At no stage in the initial trial was the unfairness of the contract introduced by any party, and the full bench couldnt hear the arguments as a result. An appeal to the high court isnt likely to get traction for the same reason - the club, the players and the coach screwed up at the begining of the trial.

And there's a pretty decent chance they didn't expect to have any joy on that front if they didn't argue that part of the case.

 

[Reykjavik]

He was fairly strongly referencing jokes related to a particular Essendon board poster, you can take as read that he was taking the mickey/casting out a line!

Ahhh..which poster? I am intrigued!

 

[expires]

Its where Essendon, Hird and the players screwed up. Either they gave it up voluntarily in which case there is literally no case, or the AFL rules forced them to, in which case that should have been the subject of the initial trial. At no stage in the initial trial was the unfairness of the contract introduced by any party, and the full bench couldnt hear the arguments as a result. An appeal to the high court isnt likely to get traction for the same reason - the club, the players and the coach screwed up at the begining of the trial.

Still doesn't make the decision right and not really the issue. Are you saying the players not objecting during the investigation is the validity of the investigation? That doesn't make coherent legal sense if it is what you are saying.

 

[expires]

Fancy your chances of catching anything?

Wouldn't mind a plane to either Budapest or a Pacific island. Why do you ask?

 

[The_Wookie]

Still doesn't make the decision right and not really the issue. Are you saying the players not objecting during the investigation is the validity of the investigation? That doesn't make coherent legal sense if it is what you are saying.

No im saying they didnt take the right argument to Middleton and subsequently screwed their own case, and any subsequent appeals.

You can argue that the AFL and ASADA cant work together - no less than 5 current and former federal judges disagreed by the way - but at no point in the initial trial did they argue that the AFL contract was unfair.

 

[Oneiros]

Ahhh..which poster? I am intrigued!

You have PMs blocked, so I can't really say

Wouldn't mind a plane to either Budapest or a Pacific island. Why do you ask?

Budapest at this time of year? Well, to each their own.

 

[expires]

No im saying they didnt take that particular arguments to Middleton and subsequently screwed their own case, and any subsequent appeals.

Middleton made it part of his ruling as far as I recall. i know he said it early days in the televised part.

Why would it be in Essendon's domain to produce an argument that a justice decided to introduce. A prejudiced nonsense really, drawing on the players lack of objection to make the process valid.

 

[Muggs]

Still doesn't make the decision right and not really the issue. Are you saying the players not objecting during the investigation is the validity of the investigation? That doesn't make coherent legal sense if it is what you are saying.

Middleton correctly judged the argument put forward to him, appeals court confirmed this.

The argument you are trying to use to say Middleton was wrong was never presented to him, thus he could not make a judgement on it. Hird tried to introduce the arguement on appeal and was told can't introduce a new arguement on appeal we not going to listen to it. It should have been presented to Middleton.