Heath Scotland Suspended

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

BlueTouchPaper

Norm Smith Medallist
Feb 18, 2009
5,009
455
AFL Club
Carlton
The magistrate in NSW got word that he had used the same line to avoid a conviction for an assault in Victoria and reversed their initial decision of no conviction. So yeah pretty heavy bearing.
Do you mean the Magistrate allowed an appeal? (I can't find a link that suggests anything else).

As a curiousity, can a Magistrate hear an appeal in NSW, and therefore reverse a decision?
 

KeilorUnder9s

Benclank01 Disciple
Nov 25, 2010
4,520
4,072
Jamestown
AFL Club
Richmond
So you don't actually know the answer to the first question? Or you just have the details mixed up?

The NSW police/DPP would lodge the appeal, as far as I know.
I believe his assertion in his first assault case that his wished to become a fireman has come back to haunt him yes?? Is that the answer to your question???
 

BlueTouchPaper

Norm Smith Medallist
Feb 18, 2009
5,009
455
AFL Club
Carlton
I believe his assertion in his first assault case that his wished to become a fireman has come back to haunt him yes?? Is that the answer to your question???
No. 'Come back to haunt him' isn't a legal descriptor, unfortunately. If he was acquitted of the first charge, do the excuses used there have any bearing on the excuses used for subsequent cases?

I'm leaning to 'no', but I don't know why I think that.
 

KeilorUnder9s

Benclank01 Disciple
Nov 25, 2010
4,520
4,072
Jamestown
AFL Club
Richmond
No. 'Come back to haunt him' isn't a legal descriptor, unfortunately. If he was acquitted of the first charge, do the excuses used there have any bearing on the excuses used for subsequent cases?

I'm leaning to 'no', but I don't know why I think that.
At the end of the day he is a thug and is getting what he deserves. I think his first case was while playing at Collingwood. Your previous court appearances can have bearing on your future ones as far as I'm aware no matter what the original outcome.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

telsor

Hall of Famer
Aug 29, 2004
32,362
30,630
Here
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Habs
Personal drug possession = 3 week ban and $5000 fine

Assault a person = 2 week ban and $3000 donation.


Do you think we, as a society, have our priorities arse about?
The punishment at hand is below what would be expected, but as I think the expected penalties are above what is realistically deserved (in AFL terms, legal issues are different), I figure this penalty is about right.

So well done to Carlton.
 

scottwade

Premiership Player
Feb 23, 2006
4,685
1,487
around
AFL Club
Sydney
FWIW details regarding appeal against Scotland's non conviction;
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/scotland-faces-appeal-over-assault-20121112-298hx.html

CARLTON footballer Heath Scotland will return to court in Albury early next year following an appeal against the leniency of a penalty imposed on him for an assault.

(His lawyer told the court) Scotland had ambitions of becoming a firefighter after his football career ended. However, Scotland could not qualify for the Metropolitan Fire Brigade due to a 10-year ban following his guilty plea.
In 2005 Scotland also escaped a conviction for assault after using the same excuse.
 

Ron

Brownlow Medallist
Sep 8, 2002
25,589
8,466
Melbourne
AFL Club
Collingwood
You have no idea what you're talking when posting normally.

No one is going to start listening to you now.
I'm not the ignoramus who believes that wanting to be a firefighter in the future is a good enough reason to get away with belting someone.


Gee maybe i'll go beat up some people, all i have to say is that one day i want to drive an ambulance around, and guess what, no worries and no conviction. :rolleyes:
 

Silvagnis

TheBrownDog
Suspended
Sep 27, 2004
60,488
15,650
Dr Geoffrey Edelsten's jacuzzi
AFL Club
Carlton
Personal drug possession = 3 week ban and $5000 fine

Assault a person = 2 week ban and $3000 donation.


Do you think we, as a society, have our priorities arse about?
Wonder if you felt this way after Mclean was fined $5000 and handed a suspended one game ban for nothing but a tweet. Plus Laidler, Murphy and Waite losing $7500 for their honest Tweets about the umpiring. All thanks to the AFL's thought police. I guess our priorities are arse about with the AFL stepping in just to protect their brand.

:thumbsdown:
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Top Bottom