Remove this Banner Ad

Murray Newman

  • Thread starter Thread starter West123
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

When I was a young man I went through a very similar assault case to Murray Newman, I knew the bloke (was and still is a well known arseh*le) lot's of history and I don't wish to run through the whole thing with anyone on here.
I didn't go to jail but was forced to pay a large sum of money through a Victim impact statement, and given a 6 month suspended sentence.
I believe Murray Newman will receive something along the same lines, and won't go to the big house!
 
eagles_4_life said:
Not sure if that is true since he is up for gbh? My brother played with him at swans colts still friends with him and others it's what I heard thought it interesting enough to post here how truthful it is no idea
Click to expand...

I'm confused about this comment. GBH is just the charge against him for punching the bloke. Having a previous record makes no difference to whether you get charged with GBH or lesser assault charge.

I find it very hard to believe previous offences would have been disclosed either during the proceedings or by Murray or his family. I would have thought the club would have done extensive research into him before they drafted him which would include looking into this stuff.
 
Eagle87 said:
You don't think there are people around the football community, particularly at West Coast, who are across the totality of the facts in this case as regards Newman?

You reckon his lawyers don't know?

You reckon full disclosure wasn't part of the clubs requirement?

You reckon someone with RE's connections wouldn't be able to uncover that?

Is it possible you're just being your usual "shoot from the hip" self, in spite of years of history suggesting you'd do well to just shut up?

:)
Click to expand...

I'm not shooting from the hip, it's simple legalities. It doesn't mater who ROYAL EAGLE knows or who he thinks he knows. Its a question of the disclosure of a minor criminal record. What Murray Newman has allegedly told the club is pure speculation and hearsay. He is under no obligation to tell anyone anything about an incident while he was a minor. Its ROYAL EAGLE who is going out on a limb making such a claim, not me.
 
TOA. said:
I find it very hard to believe previous offences would have been disclosed either during the proceedings or by Murray or his family. I would have thought the club would have done extensive research into him before they drafted him which would include looking into this stuff.
Click to expand...

Disclosed to whom?
Counsel: Yes of course he would, he'd be stupid not to as it would form part of a plea in mitigation should he be found guilty. E.g. Murray understands he has prior convictions for similar offences, however he is genuinely remorseful etc.
Club: Ditto, but for different reasons: e.g. transparency, showing he is serious about reform etc in order to keep his job.
It is reasonably unlikely the club had access to any record of Murray's prior juvenile offences (if he in fact has any) beyond Murray disclosing either orally or via a Police check (I am unsure if they are even recorded on this). What reason would they have had to do so anyway?
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Masto said:
I'm not shooting from the hip, it's simple legalities. It doesn't mater who ROYAL EAGLE knows or who he thinks he knows. Its a question of the disclosure of a minor criminal record. What Murray Newman has allegedly told the club is pure speculation and hearsay. He is under no obligation to tell anyone anything about an incident while he was a minor. Its ROYAL EAGLE who is going out on a limb making such a claim, not me.
Click to expand...

In my experience, RE has very good contacts in the WA football community and if you honestly reckon, through the many many months that this matter has been ongoing, that there are those within our club that aren't completely across the legal complexities of this issue then you have very little idea of how these things work....

You honestly believe, given the support the club has given, that Murray is going to hide information which could adversely impact on his case?

I'd back RE to have a pretty good idea.
 
Given the fact Murray is a young man with a big AFL future ahead of him and being part of a club with all the professional resources for the help and support he needs to get his life back on track I honestly believe he will cop a suspended sentence. If he f*cks up again he'll be sacked by the club and locked up. Simple.

Surely for a young man in Murray's position the best thing for him would be to guide him not jail him and I feel the court will see this.
 
QS said:
Disclosed to whom?
Counsel: Yes of course he would, he'd be stupid not to as it would form part of a plea in mitigation should he be found guilty. E.g. Murray understands he has prior convictions for similar offences, however he is genuinely remorseful etc.
Club: Ditto, but for different reasons: e.g. transparency, showing he is serious about reform etc in order to keep his job.
It is reasonably unlikely the club had access to any record of Murray's prior juvenile offences (if he in fact has any) beyond Murray disclosing either orally or via a Police check (I am unsure if they are even recorded on this). What reason would they have had to do so anyway?
Click to expand...

He was known to be quite troubled off the field when we drafted him.

From my experience you can apply to the Police Commissioner to view somebody's criminal record under the FOI Act. I have been involved in civil actions where we requested a defendants criminal record to check if anything is in their closet.
 
Masto said:
They aren't in a position to refute it. All they did was give their opinion it was false information. The real story can only be revealed in the fullness of time.
Click to expand...
They weren't being dicks, or the ones making unfounded allegations.
 
Keyser Soze said:
Isnt that only for stuff as an adult. Always thought juvenile records were sealed
Click to expand...

I believe that if it is a relevant charged it is taken into account. It is sealed as in it will not affect future employment status but will always be available to authorities.
 
Keyser Soze said:
Isnt that only for stuff as an adult. Always thought juvenile records were sealed
Click to expand...

I think that is only for general Crim checks. That said though I am only going on basic knowledge. I think it would be remiss for the provision in the Act to not apply to present charges as an adult.
e.g. 17 year old commits GBH, turns 18, does the same thing.
Same way spent convictions work, they are, for all intents and purposes in society, wiped, but still available to the court.
 
Masto said:
ROYAL EAGLE is full of shit. Unless he is a crooked cop there is no way he would have access to the criminal record of minors.
Click to expand...

Masto I have just jumped back in this conversation, and had a read through the comments.
I urge you to private message me and I can confirm, what I have told you to your satisfaction is true.
 
the harry said:
Are you sure? Because you seemed to imply that part of the reason for the charge was this mythical previous record....
Click to expand...
Mate was just sharing information I had heard that I hadn't seen posted here previously will refrain from now on
 

Remove this Banner Ad

From post #364 I thought RE was intimating that he or someone he knows is a prison officer and could therefore access this information under the Prison Act. Although, if that were true it would seem a little improper to share that information...
 
eagles_4_life said:
Mate was just sharing information I had heard that I hadn't seen posted here previously will refrain from now on
Click to expand...
I hope you don't feel that people have been ganging up on you, but I think you should be more cautious in future before posting speculation on someone's criminal record to a public forum.
 
RhEF JC said:
From post #364 I thought RE was intimating that he or someone he knows is a prison officer and could therefore access this information under the Prison Act. Although, if that were true it would seem a little improper to share that information...
Click to expand...
That's how I read it
 
RhEF JC said:
From post #364 I thought RE was intimating that he or someone he knows is a prison officer and could therefore access this information under the Prison Act. Although, if that were true it would seem a little improper to share that information...
Click to expand...

Any impropriety would be an issue for the person with access who revealed it ... which for clarity isn't RE....

To the extent such information clears up the issue then it is useful. Journos reveal such information routinely under the guise of "it is believed" or "informed sources advise"...
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

With any luck we won't have to wait much longer until we find out if he's guilty or not and perhaps some limited details of the case. I wonder how long he'll have to wait for sentencing and how he'll deal with a guilty verdict.
 
EasternHills said:
With any luck we won't have to wait much longer until we find out if he's guilty or not and perhaps some limited details of the case. I wonder how long he'll have to wait for sentencing and how he'll deal with a guilty verdict.
Click to expand...
IF he is found guilty...
 
2ugle said:
More than likely going down the self defence line in an attempt to confuse a jury. However, guilty or not guilty, Murray will not come out of this looking good.
Click to expand...

Depends how the rest of his career pans out, Simon Blacks assault charge often gets overlooked in the annuls of history due to it being the only real blip on his record.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom