Tom Bugg - In trouble? how many weeks? - now with a poll!

[The Falcon Strike]

The cops don't need a "victim complaint", they just need a witness.

Not what I was told is the case in WA

Someone not making a police statement might have implications for evidence but even then you can technically compel someone to give evidence anyway. Again I raise Pallente as a case that people read which is more relevant than "filing a complaint...."

All I can say is that I regularly see the police charge people when the victim is DEAD against charges being laid.

hahah - i asked the same question

Murder is treated differently.

May be a WA only thing though - as each jurisdiction has their own rules

 

[Snake_Baker]

Spot on. One of the main reasons the cops ask if the victim wants to press charges is because usually the victims evidence is very important to the case.

As mentioned earlier, DV cases, with victims being to scared to speak up, are often pursued with nonetheless.

The Fahour case has some solid video evidence.

Sometimes they don't even need a witness.

Say you're a parent who has employed a babysitter and you come home and find your infant is black and blue and no one gives a witness statement. The circumstantial evidence alone could gain a conviction.

 

[amazingjoshy]

This is incredible after all his work with the coward punch campaigns.

Now it looks like that was just a money ploy for him.

A lottttttt of respect lost.

No way...

 

[Snake_Baker]

Not what I was told is the case in WA

Who is telling you this stuff mate?

 

[threesixpio]

Not what I was told is the case in WA


hahah - i asked the same question

Murder is treated differently.

May be a WA only thing though - as each jurisdiction has their own rules

Lol - that wasn't a murder reference joke but yeah there's a good example!

 

[The Falcon Strike]

Who is telling you this stuff mate?

3 WA coppers - asked them around the proverbial BBQ on Sat night.

 

[threesixpio]

Sometimes they don't even need a witness.

Say you're a parent who has employed a babysitter and you come home and find your kid is black and blue. The circumstantial evidence could gain a conviction.

This is worse than the f**king HTB with people being pretend lawyers. crikey

 

[Snake_Baker]

3 WA coppers - asked them around the proverbial BBQ on Sat night.

The last people I would go to for a correct perspective of the law.

They're feeding you bullshit mate or they are too stupid to hold their positions. Either option is feasible.

 

[threesixpio]

3 WA coppers - asked them around the proverbial BBQ on Sat night.

coppers aren't always that smart.. (some are but some....well...)

 

[threesixpio]

The last people I would go to for a correct perspective of the law.

lol

Some of the things I've heard them say....

 

[The Falcon Strike]

The last people I would go to for a correct perspective of the law.

They're feeding you bullshit mate or they are too stupid to hold their positions. Either option is feasible.

Well it may or may not be the law... but they are the ones who do or don't lay charges.

So regardless of what the law states - if coppers don't press charges without a complainant - then that is why the likes of Hall et al don't have criminal records.

 

[Snake_Baker]

I know.

I have personally witnessed them lie through their teeth under oath and in a witness box.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Well it may or may not be the law... but they are the ones who do or don't lay charges.

So regardless of what the law states - if coppers don't press charges without a complainant - then that is why the likes of Hall et al don't have criminal records.

The police bring matters to the attention of the D.P.P.

The Office of Public Prosecutions lay the actual charges in most cases.

The police put the brief of evidence together.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

mills to get weeks for having a weak chin.

Yes, I think in future all clubs must test their players to see they are able to take a punch, otherwise the club should be brought into account as well.

 

[threesixpio]

Maybe read this first:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consent_(criminal_law)

 

[StonesThrow]

Cue the personal attacks and calls for sacking etc for Danny Green having an opinion that goes against the PC driven message as is the way of 2017

Cue the obligatory blame everything on PC even though it has no relevance.

 

[ApplecrossWC]

Lol hahahahahaha

You sound like the kind of bloke who goes out and gets drunk on a Saturday night and enjoy getting into punch ons with strangers

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

Accident?

There's obviously some usage of the word "accident" I'm not familiar with

 

[threesixpio]

what can you learn from it?

(A) Consent can be a defence in contact sports and other activities and;
(B) If you are going to get kinky be careful

 

[citizen-erased]

He's analysed the punch and given a considered opinion. Why is it so hard to understand.

He's not condoning Bugg's punch, just giving an expert's perspective.

Btw, I can't stand Bugg and hope he doesn't play again this year. Mainly because he's shouse.

this
not saying Bugg should get off. Just assessing the punch for what it is
Bugg goes for the fact he chose to punch and caught Mills high, knocking him out

 

[Seedsfan]

You sound like the kind of bloke who goes out and gets drunk on a Saturday night and enjoy getting into punch ons with strangers

That's a lot of assumptions there

 

[Ron The Bear]

Who does Danny Green barrack for? He has weighed in previously on tribunal matters.

I don't think he's yet come to grips with the foundation of AFL sentencing - that the penalty is largely determined by the consequences.

 

[Nightrain]

Cue the personal attacks and calls for sacking etc for Danny Green having an opinion that goes against the PC driven message as is the way of 2017

You mean the PC message that he is the face of and responsible for driving?

Green has always been an ass clown. He's just looking to keep his name in the spotlight as he can't find a no-name, never-has-been to fight him.

 

[threesixpio]

This is a pretty interesting case:

http://www.5rb.com/case/r-v-barnes/

Playing culture is relevant to consent... its not just about whether it is within the rules or not.

I said that it was "all about the law" and that the AFL had no influence on the criminal law in a post above...I actually think I was wrong about this. Have a read if you're interested.

 

[threesixpio]

R v Barnes
Reference [2004] EWCA Crim 3246; [2005] 1 WLR 910; The Times, 10 January 2005
Court Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)

Judge Lord Woolf LCJ, Cresswell LJ, Simon J

Date of Judgment 9 Dec 2004


Comment
This decision breaks new ground in the field of the criminal liability of sportsmen for causing injuries. Generally, consent is no defence to a charge of bodily harm: R v Brown (1994). The question how, if at all, this rule could or should be modified in relation to injuries caused by foul play in sport was controversial, with little authority. Some commentators took the view that all injuries caused outside the sport’s rules should be criminal, to maintain the rule of law. This judgment rules out that view. The approach adopted is similar to that of the Canadian courts, where consent may be a defence to a criminal charge based on sporting harm, and the court considers not just the rules but the playing culture of the game when deciding if conduct is criminal. The court’s view that such cases should generally be dealt with by sports regulators was in line with a well-established tradition of judicial non-intervention in sporting matters.