NO TROLLS Hawthorn Racism Review - Sensitive issues discussed.

[Wosh]

Don’t use this thread as an opportunity to troll North or any other clubs, you’ll be removed from the discussion. Stick to the topic and please keep it civil and respectful to those involved. Keep personal arguements out of this thread.
Help moderators by not quoting obvious trolls and use the report button, please and thank you.

If you feel upset or need to talk you can call either Beyond Blue on 1300 22 4636 or Lifeline on 13 11 14 at any time.

- Crisis support for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders 13YARN (13 92 76) 13YARN - Call 13 92 76 | 24 /7

This is a serious topic, please treat it as such.

Videos, statements etc in the OP here:

NO TROLLS - Hawthorn Racism Review - Sensitive issues discussed.

Don’t use this thread as an opportunity to troll North or any other clubs, you’ll be removed from the discussion. Stick to the topic and please keep it civil and respectful to those involved. Keep personal arguements out of this thread. Help moderators by not quoting obvious trolls and use the...

www.bigfooty.com

Link to Hawthorn Statement. - Link to ABC Sports article. - Leaked Report

 

[Ricketz]

Nobody is obliged to speak to the media. Certainly not to address anonymous allegations. Leading questions, loaded questions, cherry-picked responses? Very unwise to do that. Jackson has demonstrated he's not impartial.

He still lied and said he wasn't given an opportunity - he was. Twice. He lied.

 

[Makeshift Park]

Deflection. Admit it - you were just making crap up.

You have every opportunity not to be a hypocrite and do what you just asked me to.

Rather than make this all about us, I'm going to overlook that you've copied a series of paragraphs that don't relate to defamation at all, and instead focus on what you appear to have taken issue with: the role of corroboration in these types of cases.

I'd suggest you look back at the Geoffrey Rush case against the Daily Telegraph, and in particular how important it was for Rush's eventual win that the newspaper had absolutely failed to gather appropriate corroborating material to back up Erin Norvell's allegations.

Rush v Nationwide News Pty Ltd (No 7) [2019] FCA 496

www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au

 

[Curly5]

It's a good point that it is difficult to deal with an issue if it stays underground. Many of our Aboriginal players just buried what was taking place and got on with playing football. Many are still dealing with this pain and suffering post football. This is where clubs need to be better and have Aboriginal people in full time roles in their clubs who are able to support players and gain the knowledge of what is happening in a culturally sensitive way.

I can totally understand that. It also happens in other workplaces, to all sorts of people, who feel unable to speak up about a situation/s that they're uncomfortable with but feel that it's best just to put the head down and do the best they can. It can be a scarring experience.

 

[Area51]

Great point, it really comes across as intentional deflection to focus on technicalities of our legal system.
If you come from the position that this case has shone a light on the systemic racism at Hawthorn and the AFL at large then I see no point discussing the legal system either as that too is inherently biased by design against first nations people.

It's biased against people who can't afford an army of lawyers or an army of lobbyists or just plain donations to get laws drafted in their favour to begin with. But yes this would include the vast majority of first nations people's.

 

[BigPond101]

Many of the Aboriginal players will not comment if they are happy with the situation or not. They will go about their business regardless. Many won't be happy but will not challenge or take action.

Have an anonymous ballot "Do you want Clarkson at training November 1 - tick yes or no"

 

[Ricketz]

Rather than make this all about us, I'm going to overlook that you've copied a series of paragraphs that don't relate to defamation at all, and instead focus on what you appear to have taken issue with: the role of corroboration in these types of cases.

I'd suggest you look back at the Geoffrey Rush case against the Daily Telegraph, and in particular how important it was for Rush's eventual win that the newspaper had absolutely failed to gather appropriate corroborating material to back up Erin Norvell's allegations.

Rush v Nationwide News Pty Ltd (No 7) [2019] FCA 496

www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au

Again, I suggest you read your own documents.

"The absence of corroboration is also a common feature of cases involving sexual harassment. Sexual harassment is often surreptitious and does not occur in public. Many of these considerations apply to Ms Norvill’s circumstances. I have taken them into account in assessing Ms Norvill’s evidence."

Her testimony was considered unreliable because it was directly contradicted with reliable evidence. Had she been able to corroborate her claims then it may have been considered reliable.

Of course, there is no requirement to corroborate evidence by law, and the lack of corroboration was not the determining factor - the unreliability of the witness statement was.

Unless you can show me the actual law, of course.

 

[Area51]

Rather than make this all about us, I'm going to overlook that you've copied a series of paragraphs that don't relate to defamation at all, and instead focus on what you appear to have taken issue with: the role of corroboration in these types of cases.

I'd suggest you look back at the Geoffrey Rush case against the Daily Telegraph, and in particular how important it was for Rush's eventual win that the newspaper had absolutely failed to gather appropriate corroborating material to back up Erin Norvell's allegations.

Rush v Nationwide News Pty Ltd (No 7) [2019] FCA 496

www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au

This is exactly why the opportunity was provided to Clarkson and Fagan to respond to the allegations. Part of any defence will be that they sought to obtain evidence from Clarkson and Fagan and they refused. It's also difficult to obtain corroborating evidence if there is none and the court would need to take that into account. Another distinguishing feature is the number of people making allegations. We have five? in this matter. Was it just the one person in the Rush case? An important distinction when it comes to balance of probabilities. Additionally the Rush case preceded the introduction of the public interest defence so there is a whole other defence mechanism to be explored.

 

[Makeshift Park]

Again, I suggest you read your own documents.

"The absence of corroboration is also a common feature of cases involving sexual harassment. Sexual harassment is often surreptitious and does not occur in public. Many of these considerations apply to Ms Norvill’s circumstances. I have taken them into account in assessing Ms Norvill’s evidence."

Her testimony was considered unreliable because it was directly contradicted with reliable evidence. Had she been able to corroborate her claims then it may have been considered reliable.

Of course, there is no requirement to corroborate evidence by law, and the lack of corroboration was not the determining factor - the unreliability of the witness statement was.

Unless you can show me the actual law, of course.

I'm talking about what journalists like Russell Jackson have to do to ensure they don't make the same mistakes that the Daily Telegraph did in that case.

In the King Lear case, the judge found that the Tele knew the Sydney Theatre Company had not been able to confirm whether Rush's misconduct had occurred.

The parallel is this: Jackson knows that Hawthorn have not been able to confirm whether Clarkson and Fagan committed any wrongdoing. So it'll be critical that other corroborating evidence is presented, if and when this is taken to court.

 

[Ricketz]

I'm talking about what journalists like Russell Jackson have to do to ensure they don't make the same mistakes that the Daily Telegraph did in that case.

In the King Lear case, the judge found that the Tele knew the Sydney Theatre Company had not been able to confirm whether Rush's misconduct had occurred.



The parallel is this: Jackson knows that Hawthorn have not been able to confirm whether Clarkson and Fagan committed any wrongdoing. So it'll be critical that other corroborating evidence is presented, if and when this is taken to court.

Shifting goal posts again. Where is it law that you have to show you have corroborating evidence before publishing, please. Or any law that says you must corroborate evidence.

This cites a lack of evidence that could corroborate Nevin's claims as to why her testimony was unreliable, but cites the contradictory evidence that was reliable as the reason for the judgement.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Different memory of it. He’s clearly saying things didn’t go down the way they have been alleged, according to him.

Yeah, but he's not denying that they did go down.

 

[Slartibartfast]

I’ll have a stab. Egan in his report proposed mediation as the preferred method of reconciliation. Presumably in part to protact the families from potentially nasty and protracted legal proceedings. By putting everything in the public domain as he has, Jackson may have put that at risk.

The victims chose to speak with Jackson and put it in the public domain.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Defamatory has some connotations that suggest it's inappropriate to have been told, but it actually just means damaging to a reputation, and this is damaging to a reputation. Regardless of whether or not it is true, Clarkson has had his reputation damaged.

But then surely truth defence is simple?

Proving that it's true that you felt hurt by these events would be pretty straightforward I'd have thought.

 

[Slartibartfast]

The knots people are tying themselves into to avoid having to acknowledge Jackson did s s**t job are quite stunning.

And yet you will not tell us what was wrong about the Jackson article, let it go.

 

[sr36]

The parallel is this: Jackson knows that Hawthorn have not been able to confirm whether Clarkson and Fagan committed any wrongdoing. So it'll be critical that other corroborating evidence is presented, if and when this is taken to court.

I think a more accurate line would be "have not further investigated".

Although they probably have further informally investigated by now and none of us, including Jackson, are likely to know what they have or haven't discovered.

 

[Del191229]

And yet you will not tell us what was wrong about the Jackson article, let it go.

I've told you repeatedly and in response you constructed a fantasy where somehow Jackson was speaking to the families even before the investigation started.

That's conclusive proof you don't have a genuine response to my criticisms of Jackson's work.

 

[Slartibartfast]

I've told you repeatedly and in response you constructed a fantasy where somehow Jackson was speaking to the families even before the investigation started.

That's conclusive proof you don't have a genuine response to my criticisms of Jackson's work.

Tell us about the article , what parts of it a wrong , poorly written, disingenuous.
Stop attacking the author and tell us about the words he wrote.

 

[Makeshift Park]

Shifting goal posts again. Where is it law that you have to show you have corroborating evidence before publishing, please. Or any law that says you must corroborate evidence.

Of course there isn't a law that demands corroborating evidence is presented prior to publication, the corroborating evidence only becomes important after Clarkson and Fagans of the world decide to sue.
And thrilling as the prospect of unpacking the commonwealth evidence act with you might be, its clear you're trolling at this point, so I'll leave it at that.

 

[Del191229]

All this talk about legalities, corroboration and defamation is interesting but let's not forget that there are people at the centre of this and these people are hurting.

They're going to be hurting far more when they end up with a relatively small cash payout and an NDA at the end of all this.

I'd love North to organise some form of session where people like Phillip Krakouer and Lindsay Thomas, as well as elders involved in something like Yoo-Rook, get together with the families, Cksrkson and our current list for a yarn.

All private, no media. Just people being honest, explaining where they come from, what they feel.

So some good comes of this

 

[sr36]

But then surely truth defence is simple?

Proving that it's true that you felt hurt by these events would be pretty straightforward I'd have thought.

I'm not sure if you are talking about Clarkson or the indigenous players.

Technically, Jackson's article is defamation against the named coaches, whether or not it's true, as their reputation is undoubtedly damaged. But if he can show that it is very likely to be true, Jackson can't be sued for the defamation.

Or in other words, the formal definition of defamation isn't interested in truth or Australia's defamation laws - it's only interested in what has happened to Clarko's reputation - it's been defamed, which would be pretty hard to dispute. Whether or not it is defamatory isn't in dispute - it is defamatory. Whether or not it is true and thus legally ok to damage his reputation is what is in question.

 

[RichLeMonde]

I can barely understand what you are trying to say here. But read this and stop banging on about crap:

Part 4.4 – Corroboration (s 164)
The common law is generally concerned with the quality rather than the quantity of evidence. However, in a small number of exceptional cases in criminal trials, the common law developed rules of law or practice which focused on the existence of supporting or corroborating evidence.

In the case of perjury, the common law permitted the jury to convict only where the falsity of the statement in question was proved either by two witnesses, or by a single witness with corroboration.

In a number of other circumstances, the common law permitted convictions on the basis of uncorroborated evidence, but required the judge to warn the jury about the dangers of convicting in the absence of corroboration. This requirement was originally imposed in relation to the following classes of evidence or witnesses:

Accomplices;
Complainants alleging sexual offences; and
Unsworn evidence of children.
The law relating to corroboration was often complex and technical, raising difficult issues regarding what evidence qualifies as ‘corroboration’. In addition, legislation in most states had reformed corroboration requirements in relation to sexual offence complainants and children.

Sections 164 and 165 of the Uniform Evidence Law replace previous corroboration requirements with a guided discretionary approach to jury directions which focuses on the needs of the case. The Act, however, preserves corroboration requirements in relation to perjury (ALRC 26 at [1015]–[1023]).

Following the commencement of the Jury Directions Act 2015 on 29 June 2015, corroboration directions are prohibited in all cases except those such as perjury where corroboration continues to be required as a matter of law. Prior to these changes, the Evidence Act 2008 permitted but did not require corroboration directions. This gave rise to difficulties in cases where judges gave erroneous corroboration directions and concerns about inconsistent practices regarding when judges would choose to give corroboration directions.

These passages only reconfirm that the notion of “corroboration” has an extremely important, technical definition in law. The incidents in the article are not corroborated. If you read the article carefully, it’s actually quite striking that the indigenous player - and his then partner who had an abortion - do not actually directly corroborate each other’s reports; rather, they talk about different things

 

[Del191229]

But it can start the conversation.

I doubt the journalist thought his story was going to be the beginning and end of the matter

He's certainly acting like it, with his hysterical attacks on anyone he deems is not accepting it all as proven fact.

 

[Del191229]

Well I guess now it’s all ok with clarkson and Fagan returning to work before the investigation begins , and people wonder why the players don’t trust the afl

They are waiting until the terms of reference are agreed aka the investigation begins, before going back to work.

 

[Del191229]

I’m sure Jed is ecstatic.

You do know Jed isn't one of the players right.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

I'm not sure if you are talking about Clarkson or the indigenous players.

Technically, Jackson's article is defamation against the named coaches, whether or not it's true, as their reputation is undoubtedly damaged. But if he can show that it is very likely to be true, Jackson can't be sued for the defamation.

Or in other words, the formal definition of defamation isn't interested in truth or Australia's defamation laws - it's only interested in what has happened to Clarko's reputation - it's been defamed. Possibly justifiably.

Yeah, I get that. But who cares about defamation in terms of its non-legal definition?

Under the non-legal definition, people are defamed on a daily basis in all walks of life.

 

[sr36]

These passages only reconfirm that the notion of “corroboration” has an extremely important, technical definition in law. The incidents in the article are not corroborated. If you read the article carefully, it’s actually quite striking that the indigenous player - and his then partner who had an abortion - do not actually directly corroborate each other’s reports; rather, they talk about different things

Is all supporting evidence viewed as corroboration - eg. patterned behaviour. Or is the term only used to describe evidence that directly supports an individual claim?