List Mgmt. Welcome Tyler Brockman (Traded for Picks 44 and 63 in 2023)

[beatlesmith]

Broken jaw is AOBH, if the victim is refusing to sign up Detectives would be working on gathering other evidence however very hard to proceed without a victim sign up.

A wounding on the other handing doesn't require a victim statement and can proceed without their consent.

Broken jaw is usually GBH. The test is whether, without treatment, the injury would be likely to endanger life or cause permanent injury to health. If the broken jaw requires surgery (as most do), it will usually constitute GBH because without surgery there can be permanent issues with eating or speaking. Lesser facial fractures will usually be AOBH, but broken jaws are almost always GBH (see Marley Williams, Murray Newman).

There is no distinction between wounding, AOBH or GBH in terms of whether a complainant is necessary. There are differences in terms of which defences can be run (provocation cannot be run on GBH or wounding, consent cannot be run on GBH), but a complainant is a necessary ingredient for each offence.

I’ve never had either WA Police or the State take an assault/GBH/wounding matter to trial without a willing complainant. On each occasion where the complainant has not been a willing participant, the matter has ultimately been dropped or was never charged in the first place. And on another, relevant note, every single regional assault (or similar) matter I had listed for trial in 2025 was ultimately discontinued because the complainant was not supportive of the prosecution.

 

[JackOutback]

What generally happens and what can legally happen are two different things. I was responding to the comment that police can’t lay a charge without a complainant. They can, even if they often don’t. If the entire incident was caught on video start to finish, they could lay a charge and get a conviction.

Police lay murder charges without a complainant, given they are dead. If the evidence is there, a charge can be laid.

 

[Matera92]

Broken jaw is usually GBH. The test is whether, without treatment, the injury would be likely to endanger life or cause permanent injury to health. If the broken jaw requires surgery (as most do), it will usually constitute GBH because without surgery there can be permanent issues with eating or speaking. Lesser facial fractures will usually be AOBH, but broken jaws are almost always GBH (see Marley Williams, Murray Newman).

There is no distinction between wounding, AOBH or GBH in terms of whether a complainant is necessary. There are differences in terms of which defences can be run (provocation cannot be run on GBH or wounding, consent cannot be run on GBH), but a complainant is a necessary ingredient for each offence.

I’ve never had either WA Police or the State take an assault/GBH/wounding matter to trial without a willing complainant. On each occasion where the complainant has not been a willing participant, the matter has ultimately been dropped or was never charged in the first place. And on another, relevant note, every single regional assault (or similar) matter I had listed for trial in 2025 was ultimately discontinued because the complainant was not supportive of the prosecution.

They will arrest on GBH but very often gets downgraded to AOBH once medical report comes through.

There is absolutely a distinction between AOBH, GBH and wounding when it comes to victim sign-up for pursuing a charge, all three need to identify a victim but you can proceed with a charge for a wounding without a victim sign-up. ( Not saying they always will but I have seen it successfully prosecuted)

 

[beatlesmith]

They will arrest on GBH but very often gets downgraded to AOBH once medical report comes through.

There is absolutely a distinction between AOBH, GBH and wounding when it comes to victim sign-up for pursuing a charge, all three need to identify a victim but you can proceed with a charge for a wounding without a victim sign-up. ( Not saying they always will but I have seen it successfully prosecuted)

The charge may occasionally be downgraded but to say that a broken jaw is AOBH is plainly untrue. One of the first things WAPOL will do is get the treating doctor to tick the “GBH box”.

Please explain why, at law, there is a distinction between AOBH or GBH and wounding in terms of requiring a complainant? A complainant is necessary to say “I am the one who was wounded/assaulted” and to establish that the assault/wounding was unlawful by rebutting any defences raised by the accused.

Can I ask what experience you have in this field?

 

[Godfather32]

Whether he gets charged or not, if it was actually him being the aggressor and not just defending himself, do we really want a guy on the team who runs around the streets at night belting blokes?

 

[Jeremy McLovin]

Whether he gets charged or not, if it was actually him being the aggressor and not just defending himself, do we really want a guy on the team who runs around the streets at night belting blokes?

Obviously not, but we would want to be secure in our position if we were tearing up a contract rather than just delisting him at the end of the year, especially given he's indigenous.

 

[Godfather32]

Obviously not, but we would want to be secure in our position if we were tearing up a contract rather than just delisting him at the end of the year, especially given he's indigenous.

I don't think we will tear up his contract, just quietly let him leave at the end of the season

 

[Jeremy McLovin]

I don't think we will tear up his contract, just quietly let him leave at the end of the season

Yeah there wouldn't be any benefit i don't think. Maybe if he's charged and found guilty before the ssp cut off, but that isn't happening. Or maybe if there was someone we wanted at the MSD but we didn't have any long term injuries. But yeah, end of the year is most likely.

 

[Shupe]

What generally happens and what can legally happen are two different things. I was responding to the comment that police can’t lay a charge without a complainant. They can, even if they often don’t. If the entire incident was caught on video start to finish, they could lay a charge and get a conviction.

Police lay murder charges without a complainant, given they are dead. If the evidence is there, a charge can be laid.

I never said Police can't lay a charge without a complainant. I said there has to be a complainant, in which is necessary for a reasonable prospect of conviction. It is somewhat negligent to charge someone without a complainant with a view to discontinue charges before trial, especially given the restrictive bail conditions often imposed (if not remanded in custody). These are very murky waters, which are usually only explored for family violence matters in an effort to protect a vulnerable victim.

Everything beatlesmith has said is spot on (and is clearly a dirty criminal defence lawyer).

 

[Matera92]

The charge may occasionally be downgraded but to say that a broken jaw is AOBH is plainly untrue. One of the first things WAPOL will do is get the treating doctor to tick the “GBH box”.

Please explain why, at law, there is a distinction between AOBH or GBH and wounding in terms of requiring a complainant? A complainant is necessary to say “I am the one who was wounded/assaulted” and to establish that the assault/wounding was unlawful by rebutting any defences raised by the accused.

Can I ask what experience you have in this field?

Firsthand.

WAPOL don't get the treating doctor to 'tick' anything, it is up to the doctor's discretion. The diagnosis can change based on the medical outcome and it can be either downgraded or upgraded based on the medical report however to say it's always classed as GBH is how you say it 'plainly untrue.'

If Police can identify a victim of a wounding (Not that hard really, lots of blood, screaming, witnesses, CCTV etc ) they will often proceed with charging the offender regardless if said victim is willing to provide a statement if they have enough supporting evidence to bring it to trial. This is often due to the seriousness of the crime and perceived nature of knife crimes ability to create fear in the general public. (Not all woundings are knife crimes of course thus it's on a case by case basis, not a blanket rule.)

Having a willing victim who will stand up in court and identify the suspect is always best and WAPOL will always endeavor to get said victim on side however there are provisions to proceed with a charge if they prove hostile when it comes to woundings.

 

[Dom sheed pocket]

I'm fairly certain we don't get the choice about charges in Australia, if there's a crime police are expected to pursue it.

Regardless yeah it does seem they're either working on Gero time and dragging their feet with arresting him or nothing is going to happen (as in there's no case to answer).

In most instances police require a victim to make a statement and to press charges. To be charged with a crime there needs to be a victim.

Exception is police can pursue charges in matters relating to family violence without a victim.

In saying that, police charges may actually slow the process down given the AFL integrity unit do not investigate when police are invovled.

He could not face any charges from police and still face a penalty from AFL.

 

[Bender_]

In most instances police require a victim to make a statement and to press charges. To be charged with a crime there needs to be a victim.

Exception is police can pursue charges in matters relating to family violence without a victim.

In saying that, police charges may actually slow the process down given the AFL integrity unit do not investigate when police are invovled.

He could not face any charges from police and still face a penalty from AFL.

Again, "pressing charges" is not an Australian thing, it's an American thing. Everything else about your post could be correct, but in Australia you don't get your head beaten in and then given the choice if you'd like to "press charges", it's just not how our legal system works.

 

[Seadog]

Again, "pressing charges" is not an Australian thing, it's an American thing. Everything else about your post could be correct, but in Australia you don't get your head beaten in and then given the choice if you'd like to "press charges", it's just not how our legal system works.

If the victim doesn't co-operate it's pretty hard to get a conviction but you are correct, the victim doesn't get to press charges.

 

[Bender_]

If the victim doesn't co-operate it's pretty hard to get a conviction but you are correct, the victim doesn't get to press charges.

100%. Massive difference between the 2 however.

 

[Ambrose Burnside]

It's clear that Law and Order was a very popular series in Australia

 

[Altum Volantes]

It's clear that Law and Order was a very popular series in Australia

...but not in Geraldton.

 

[Ambrose Burnside]

...but not in Geraldton.

They're the type who would get beaten up by Stabler.

 

[Rowan18]

It's clear that Law and Order was a very popular series in Australia

We have several members on this forum who have been police officers and others who have been solicitors (maybe even barristers). Also several public servants, so maybe some have worked in the courts.

 

[JackOutback]

It's clear that Law and Order was a very popular series in Australia

Dun dun.

We have several members on this forum who have been police officers and others who have been solicitors (maybe even barristers). Also several public servants, so maybe some have worked in the courts.

Not a lawyer, not a police officer, just a humble recidivist offender here.

 

[Ambrose Burnside]

We have several members on this forum who have been police officers and others who have been solicitors (maybe even barristers). Also several public servants, so maybe some have worked in the courts.

I'm referring to the peeps who keep referring to American laws etc

 

[Bender_]

I'm referring to the peeps who keep referring to American laws etc

Tyler could always plead the "fif" if he takes his place on the stand.

 

[beatlesmith]

Firsthand.

WAPOL don't get the treating doctor to 'tick' anything, it is up to the doctor's discretion. The diagnosis can change based on the medical outcome and it can be either downgraded or upgraded based on the medical report however to say it's always classed as GBH is how you say it 'plainly untrue.'

If Police can identify a victim of a wounding (Not that hard really, lots of blood, screaming, witnesses, CCTV etc ) they will often proceed with charging the offender regardless if said victim is willing to provide a statement if they have enough supporting evidence to bring it to trial. This is often due to the seriousness of the crime and perceived nature of knife crimes ability to create fear in the general public. (Not all woundings are knife crimes of course thus it's on a case by case basis, not a blanket rule.)

Having a willing victim who will stand up in court and identify the suspect is always best and WAPOL will always endeavor to get said victim on side however there are provisions to proceed with a charge if they prove hostile when it comes to woundings.

What does firsthand mean? Are you a lawyer? Police officer? Victim?

I’ve been a criminal defence lawyer since 2016 and I’ve dealt with more wounding/GBH/assault matters than I can count. I’ve never encountered a prosecution proceeding to trial for a wounding without the cooperation of the complainant, and I’ve seen plenty discontinued when that cooperation isn’t there on the day of trial.

Of course WAPOL don’t force the doctor to do anything but there is a pro-forma statement that will say:
The injuries were / were not of such a nature as to endanger life or cause or be likely to cause permanent injury to health.

The doctor will then tick one of the boxes to make it entirely unambiguous whether they believe the injuries amount to GBH. The fact that you’re not aware of what I’m referring to tells me you don’t really know what you’re talking about.

I’ve asked you to explain what the distinction is at law. You’ve said that there are “provisions” but cannot identify them. If you have any authorities or legislation to cite I’m all ears.

 

[Matera92]

What does firsthand mean? Are you a lawyer? Police officer? Victim?

I’ve been a criminal defence lawyer since 2016 and I’ve dealt with more wounding/GBH/assault matters than I can count. I’ve never encountered a prosecution proceeding to trial for a wounding without the cooperation of the complainant, and I’ve seen plenty discontinued when that cooperation isn’t there on the day of trial.

Of course WAPOL don’t force the doctor to do anything but there is a pro-forma statement that will say:
The injuries were / were not of such a nature as to endanger life or cause or be likely to cause permanent injury to health.

The doctor will then tick one of the boxes to make it entirely unambiguous whether they believe the injuries amount to GBH. The fact that you’re not aware of what I’m referring to tells me you don’t really know what you’re talking about.

I’ve asked you to explain what the distinction is at law. You’ve said that there are “provisions” but cannot identify them. If you have any authorities or legislation to cite I’m all ears.

I mean, if you've never encountered it mustn't have happened right?

Didn't really want to out myself but since you apparently can't accept anything outside your own anecdotal experience, I am currently a serving WAPOL member and I have given evidence in district court where charges have been preferred without the victim willing to provide a statement or attend court in a wounding matter.

You made it sound like it was a given said form is always completed in a manner to suggest it's a GBH where that's simply not true. Perhaps that's all YOU have dealt with, but I've seen many different injuries including jaw fractures which haven't been severe enough to warrant a GBH charge.

You can either accept that or not I don't really care, I was trying to offer a little insight to those discussing the matter that there are times where Police will pursue a conviction regardless of victim wishes if they believe it to be in the public interest.

 

[Keys]

CH9 reporting that police have said investigations are ongoing

Not much to the report and sounded like a cookie cutter response to a question from a reporter chasing an update

 

[Bender_]

I mean, if you've never encountered it mustn't have happened right?

Didn't really want to out myself but since you apparently can't accept anything outside your own anecdotal experience, I am currently a serving WAPOL member and I have given evidence in district court where charges have been preferred without the victim willing to provide a statement or attend court in a wounding matter.

You made it sound like it was a given said form is always completed in a manner to suggest it's a GBH where that's simply not true. Perhaps that's all YOU have dealt with, but I've seen many different injuries including jaw fractures which haven't been severe enough to warrant a GBH charge.

You can either accept that or not I don't really care, I was trying to offer a little insight to those discussing the matter that there are times where Police will pursue a conviction regardless of victim wishes if they believe it to be in the public interest.

I always pictured you to be a proctologist.