- Feb 18, 2009
- 5,009
- 455
- AFL Club
- Carlton
So it's a (semi-)legitimate excuse to not having a conviction upheld?!
-
LIVE: St Kilda v Western Bulldogs - 7:30PM Thu
Squiggle tips Saints at 51% chance -- What's your tip? -- Team line-ups »
Heath Scotland Suspended
- Thread starter Bugga1962
- Start date
- Tagged users None
He has used the same excuse at two different hearings, both assaults. True?
- Feb 18, 2009
- 5,009
- 455
- AFL Club
- Carlton
I simply do not know.
If he wasn't convicted of the first, would your assertion have any bearing on the second?
Fiery Blue Put Out
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.
- Feb 18, 2009
- 5,009
- 455
- AFL Club
- Carlton
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?
Yeah I may have the details arsed about sorry, an appeal was lodged by the NSW police or government?
- Feb 18, 2009
- 5,009
- 455
- AFL Club
- Carlton
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???
- Banned
- #36
It's not even close to being a legitimate excuse.
Not even in the same ballpark.
- Feb 18, 2009
- 5,009
- 455
- AFL Club
- Carlton
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.
- Feb 18, 2009
- 5,009
- 455
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Feb 18, 2009
- 5,009
- 455
- AFL Club
- Carlton
My post(s) on the Carlton board show my thoughts.
wow
telsor
Hall of Famer
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.
spudmaster
Brownlow Medallist
Bring in the firing squad perhaps? We seem to be the odd one out this side of the equator.
So they are and I completely agree with you.
FWIW details regarding appeal against Scotland's non conviction;
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/scotland-faces-appeal-over-assault-20121112-298hx.html
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/scotland-faces-appeal-over-assault-20121112-298hx.html
spudmaster
Brownlow Medallist
When the Magistrate asked Heath why he had hit the bloke in retaliation who hit his brother he replied
"Your Worship, I was simply fighting fire with fire"
"Your Worship, I was simply fighting fire with fire"
- Banned
- #48
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.
- Banned
- #49
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.
- Aug 9, 2012
- 11,162
- 6,123
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Banned
- #50
It's actually about violence vs personal drug use.
Similar threads
- Locked
