Murray Newman

[Eagle87]

How would these programs have coped if we'd recruited Krakouer for the 2011 season? He went away for 18 months, I strongly doubt Newman's sentence will top that.

After the bloke has served his time; lost everything; then fought back for a year in lower leagues showing he has turned his life around then a second chance seems wholly reasonable.

 

[Shupe]

These days nobody learns a lesson because there are no 'real' consequences.. a suspended jail term, yes it is a consequence, but not one anyone cares about as all they have to do is behave themselves for the period it runs and everything is as it was.. nothing is lost.

Isn't that the idea of punishment though? Suspended jail term sees the individual behave themselves and contribute to society. No more crime. That's a win for all involved.

 

[Eagle87]

This is a statement.

Its a question. It's clearly a fact. But not one you'll acknowledge because it doesn't suit you.

And you've again failed to answer or acknowledge it.

Brilliant stuff. It's not like you to attempt to frame a debate within a narrow set of perimeters.

My logic is clear. The club isn't part of the justice system and is capable of making it's own informed decisions, based around the facts available to them.

My values and politics aren't irrelevant, because that's really what this boils down to.

I'm pretty sure you've never been involved in the management of a meaningful organisation.

West Coast is a part of the community, as is the legal system. And West Coast benefits from public funding and public assistance in a range of ways. It also sets itself up as an organisation that sets an example of what's good for young people of all backgrounds across the state.

It demands excellence and via its code of conduct policies and it's player contracts demands much higher standards of behaviour than most employers.

Except if you threaten a guy for a month, beat him senseless while he's drunk, risking either his death or permanent injury.

Then it's ok if we decide you might be able to help us at some point in future because you've got talent.

Also, again I get that your new at this logic and arguing thing, I'm not narrowly framing anything. I'm simplifying things to get you to answer some threshold questions, so we have a basis for the argument/discussion.

As usual your position is, well I have my view based on nothing but the contents of my anus, but it's my view, so why should I have to justify it.

Which is of course your right and also the refuge of the very very dim.[/quote]

 

[Eagle87]

Isn't that the idea of punishment though? Suspended jail term sees the individual behave themselves and contribute to society. No more crime. That's a win for all involved.

There is punishment and there is rehabilitation. Suspended jail term for a minor offence might be fine.

The issue is whether GBH is minor.

 

[Maxxyb]

We are going round in circles, but I’ve only got 30 odd posts up so once more unto the breach dear friends, once more.

“It doesn't matter of he's a nice guy, trying his best, in an organisation with the public profile of West Coast there has to be some baseline level of behaviour below which you cannot go. Surely that's a reasonable position?”

An absolutely reasonable position, but it’s the club’s call. They get to draw the line in the sand and in this instance I think they have acted appropriately- you do not. I’m OK with giving Murray this opportunity and believe it sends a positive message - you are obviously not OK with it. It would be interesting to get a comment from AFL house.

“And as for your "we don't know all the details", bollocks. We know all the relevant ones after 3 days of a public trial. He threatened a guy for a month, then followed through on it and then boasted about it the next day.... because his pride was hurt.”

I should have more specific – this was a reference to his issues not related to the GBH conviction.

So here we are. Two (or more!) nobodies on a footy forum with differing opinions. I can see the headlines now – “More scandal at WCE with fans divided on Newman decision – Robert Walls demands to know what this club stands for” As far as I can tell, our “culture” (F$#@ I hate that term) has not been called into question over this matter at all. Again, it would be interesting to get a comment from AFL house.

I think I’ve made it clear I’m no great fan of Murray’s and think he owes us big time. I’m hopeful he can turn it around, but if not, I don’t think leaving him on the rookie list for a season or two reflects poorly on the club at all.


By the way, I’m told it is not certain that he will receive gaol time. Lawyers huh?

 

[Eagle87]

We are going round in circles, but I’ve only got 30 odd posts up so once more unto the breach dear friends, once more.

“It doesn't matter of he's a nice guy, trying his best, in an organisation with the public profile of West Coast there has to be some baseline level of behaviour below which you cannot go. Surely that's a reasonable position?”

An absolutely reasonable position, but it’s the club’s call. They get to draw the line in the sand and in this instance I think they have acted appropriately- you do not. I’m OK with giving Murray this opportunity and believe it sends a positive message - you are obviously not OK with it. It would be interesting to get a comment from AFL house.

“And as for your "we don't know all the details", bollocks. We know all the relevant ones after 3 days of a public trial. He threatened a guy for a month, then followed through on it and then boasted about it the next day.... because his pride was hurt.”

I should have more specific – this was a reference to his issues not related to the GBH conviction.

So here we are. Two (or more!) nobodies on a footy forum with differing opinions. I can see the headlines now – “More scandal at WCE with fans divided on Newman decision – Robert Walls demands to know what this club stands for” As far as I can tell, our “culture” (F$#@ I hate that term) has not been called into question over this matter at all. Again, it would be interesting to get a comment from AFL house.

I think I’ve made it clear I’m no great fan of Murray’s and think he owes us big time. I’m hopeful he can turn it around, but if not, I don’t think leaving him on the rookie list for a season or two reflects poorly on the club at all.


By the way, I’m told it is not certain that he will receive gaol time. Lawyers huh?

Of course it's not certain, until it's done. On balance of probability it's more likely than not that he'll get jail time with the best "hope" being some or all of it is suspended.

As for the other stuff, I reckon GBH is serious and our club can't be seen to condone that in any way.

As far as nobodies go, perhaps. But let's put it this way, the Board ARE somewhat divided on this and there is certainly a view that we need to be very careful here.

But you may be from the group that still reckons Woosh wasn't pushed. One of the issues raised against him by certain members of the Board was that he let discipline slip through the pre-season and into the actual season because his care factor was lower than it should have been. So lack of discipline is an issue again at Board level. Sometimes nobody knows these things.

Can I ask what happens if he is imprisoned? Let's say he gets 18 months, released after say 9 on bail. Do we keep him on the list for 2014 if he's in prison for bashing a bloke?

 

[QS]

Isn't that the idea of punishment though? Suspended jail term sees the individual behave themselves and contribute to society. No more crime. That's a win for all involved.

Punish and deter, suspended prison term for GBH does neither in my view.
My mate got 3 months (12 months total sentence 3 months non parole) for breaking a guys arm with a kick which was AOBH; the lesser charge and this was well before one punch attacks were mainstream.

 

[Eastern Rangers]

Its a question. It's clearly a fact. But not one you'll acknowledge because it doesn't suit you.

And you've again failed to answer or acknowledge it.

It's a pretty long thread. The question is of the weight of his actions, you used this line of questioning for emotive purposes.

I'm pretty sure you've never been involved in the management of a meaningful organisation.

West Coast is a part of the community, as is the legal system. And West Coast benefits from public funding and public assistance in a range of ways. It also sets itself up as an organisation that sets an example of what's good for young people of all backgrounds across the state.

It demands excellence and via its code of conduct policies and it's player contracts demands much higher standards of behaviour than most employers.

Except if you threaten a guy for a month, beat him senseless while he's drunk, risking either his death or permanent injury.

Then it's ok if we decide you might be able to help us at some point in future because you've got talent.

Also, again I get that your new at this logic and arguing thing, I'm not narrowly framing anything. I'm simplifying things to get you to answer some threshold questions, so we have a basis for the argument/discussion.

As usual your position is, well I have my view based on nothing but the contents of my anus, but it's my view, so why should I have to justify it.

Which is of course your right and also the refuge of the very very dim.

No not yet, still studying. Id love to know what you consider "meaningful" because you bring up your work an awful lot.

I come from a large family, arguing is in my nature. You wouldn't believe how much my family debates.

Your position is a rigid one based on the arbitrary but necessary nature of the law. You would rule and make judgement singularly on the type of charges brought and/ or prosecuted against any one player and i agree to an extent. Rape, manslaughter and murder would see a player indefinably removed/ suspended from the club irrespective of their age, background or the context of the events.

I think Newmans age, immaturity, willingness to do right by the club are all relevant and i disagree that retaining him over this three month period can be perceived as a negative by the community at large. At least this is true with the community i'm involved with.

Like you said earlier the club should be a positive member of society. Which you take to mean giving Newman the benefit of the doubt up until the trail. At which a guilty verdict is a determinative factor in seeing him removed from West Coast.

For me, the weight given to that verdict needs to be held in context of his actions (looked at as objectively as possible), his age, his background and any other relevant facts. It's not necessary to make an a decision based on him being convicted of GBH alone. However in Newman was 25-27yo, then i'd be much more inclined than i otherwise am to ask for him to be delisted. Irrespective of that players importance. Because at that age they're usually role models and usually a lot higher profile players. You want mature players setting examples for others and creating a particular culture and environment within the club.

Newman isn't part of some systemic culture that exists within the senior group, he's a young outlier who's done something really stupid.

I've made my views persistently clear through this thread.




FWIW I bet you're a great middle manager. Someone who acts as a decent enforcer, but is easily circumnavigated by those above.

 

[Eagle87]

It's a pretty long thread. The question is of the weight of his actions, you used this line of questioning for emotive purposes.



No not yet, still studying. Id love to know what you consider "meaningful" because you bring up your work an awful lot.

I come from a large family, arguing is in my nature. You wouldn't believe how much my family debates.

Your position is a rigid one based on the arbitrary but necessary nature of the law. You would rule and make judgement singularly on the type of charges brought and/ or prosecuted against any one player and i agree to an extent. Rape, manslaughter and murder would see a player indefinably removed/ suspended from the club irrespective of their age, background or the context of the events.

I think Newmans age, immaturity, willingness to do right by the club are all relevant and i disagree that retaining him over this three month period can be perceived as a negative by the community at large. At least this is true with the community i'm involved with.

Like you said i earlier the club should be a positive member of society. Which you take to mean giving Newman the benefit of the doubt up until the trail. At which a guilty verdict is a determinative factor in seeing him removed from West Coast.

For me, the weight given to that verdict needs to be held in context of his actions (looked at as objectively as possible), his age, his background and any other relevant facts. It's not necessary to make an a decision based on him being convicted of GBH alone. However in Newman was 25-27yo then i'd be much more inclined than i otherwise am to ask for him to be delisted irrespective of that players importance. Because at that age they're usually role models and usually a lot higher profile players. You want mature players setting examples for others and creating a particular culture and environment within the club.

Newman isn't part of some systemic culture that exists within the senior group, he's a young outlier who's done something really stupid.

I've made my views persistently clear through this thread.




FWIW I bet you're a great middle manager. Someone who acts as a decent enforcer, but is easily circumnavigated by those above.

Not too bad!

Except the last bit; I'd be the worst middle/line manager on earth as I struggle with following the lead of stupid people, particularly promoting stupid policies.

By "meaningful", I meant one with profile/significance as opposed to just a business or organisation that goes about it's business without any spotlight.

I agree with context in this and all cases, I just think anytime a guy threatens someone for a month; then follows through with beating a drunk guy; then brags about it, even at the skinny end of penalties for such an offence he voids his right to the privileged position of AFL footballer.

I do actually understand the nuance position but I'm not sure that even the lightest if GBH offences warrants the club holding onto him once guilt is found.

Do you agree that a judgement that attaches more gravity than perhaps you see as warranted changes things? I mean say he gets a 2 year sentence? Would you still support the clubs current position?

FWIW, when I was involved in meaningful multinationals at Director level, I was something of a change manager, often prodding and poking things to get to the crux of issues and to get people to be clear on things...

 

[beatlesmith]

It is hardly broad or arbitrary. Here is the definition of GBH under WA law.

GBH” is any bodily injury of such a nature as to endanger, or be likely to endanger life, or cause or be likely to cause permanent injury to health.

So when you say "it's not like he nearly killed him" that's not really true. The incident was judged to have endangered or likely to have endangered life or caused permanent injury. It's serious.

It's arbitrary in that a fractured jaw is accepted as GBH when other, similar injuries are not. What constitutes "endangering life" and "permanent injury to health" is very much open to interpretation, having been guided by precedent that a lot of people in the legal community don't even agree with.
You asked before how we should react if the victim had died, but what if the victim had instead sustained a broken nose or lost a few teeth (see Daniel Kerr, 2007)? Suddenly it's assault or AOBH (not new charges for AFL players) and jail isn't even in the picture.

I'm not trying to defend Murray but I can understand why some are reluctant to ditch him. I mean were Murray's actions any worse than those of Simon Black, Michael Voss, Daniel Kerr or Dane Swan, or any of the dozens of punters getting into fights in Northbridge tonight? It's all about circumstance- his punch connected in an area of the fact that attracts a GBH charge, theirs didn't; but that fact doesn't make him necessarily more violent or aggressive, and the fact that the charge is more serious doesn't make the act itself any worse, just the consequence.

I wouldn't be unhappy with either outcome, personally.

The point is, he's been found guilty of THE most serious assault offence outside of one that results in a death.
If so, are we drawing the line at killing someone? Because that's the next most serious offence.

That's a bit disingenuous. GBH (2)-(4), GBH with intent, attempting to unlawfully kill, most serious assaults and most unlawful woundings are more serious than an "entry-level" GBH charge.

...And now I have to get back to studying Tanzanian customary inheritance law.

 

[Eagle87]

It's arbitrary in that a fractured jaw is accepted as GBH when other, similar injuries are not. What constitutes "endangering life" and "permanent injury to health" is very much open to interpretation, having been guided by precedent that a lot of people in the legal community don't even agree with.
You asked before how we should react if the victim had died, but what if the victim had instead sustained a broken nose or lost a few teeth (see Daniel Kerr, 2007)? Suddenly it's assault or AOBH (not new charges for AFL players) and jail isn't even in the picture.

I'm not trying to defend Murray but I can understand why some are reluctant to ditch him. I mean were Murray's actions any worse than those of Simon Black, Michael Voss, Daniel Kerr or Dane Swan, or any of the dozens of punters getting into fights in Northbridge tonight? It's all about circumstance- his punch connected in an area of the fact that attracts a GBH charge, theirs didn't; but that fact doesn't make him necessarily more violent or aggressive, and the fact that the charge is more serious doesn't make the act itself any worse, just the consequence.

I wouldn't be unhappy with either outcome, personally.


That's a bit disingenuous. GBH (2)-(4), GBH with intent, attempting to unlawfully kill, most serious assaults and most unlawful woundings are more serious than an "entry-level" GBH charge.

...And now I have to get back to studying Tanzanian customary inheritance law.

Well your first set of arguments make no sense because of the hypothetical. I mean Newmans case is worse because of what did happen. End of story.

If I drive home pissed tonight and hit no-one and I'm not picked up by police then there is no penalty, if instead I run into a police car and kill a police officer then the penalties will be terrible. Once you break the law, the consequences of your actions will determine the penalty to a great extent.

Newman broke the law and if he'd simply cut the guys face he wouldn't be in much trouble, if he'd killed the guy he'd be in more trouble, as it is he's in a lot of trouble.

Black had no degree of premeditation and nor did Voss, in addition they didn't do the same thing and weren't charged or found guilty of the same offence. So they were demonstrably different.

The fact that you feel they are kind of the same and Newman is unlucky misunderstands the law. The law does directly reflect, in part, the level of damage done. A concept many in here seem to be having trouble with.

If anyone here hits a "douche" in a bar (borrowing an earlier description that apparently applies to all victims of beatings in pubs) and said douche dies, you are ****ed. If they just suffer other life threatening injuries or injuries that potentially risk causing permanent damage then the shit is reasonably deep. If you're lucky and the guy just gets a blood nose you're probably ok. You swings your fists and you takes your chances.

This notion that it's just a pub punch and he's unlucky needs to be replaced with he hit someone unlawfully and he's lucky he didn't do more damage. And if Newman gets 2 years to illustrate that point then those of you who think it's no big deal and he's unlucky may have pause to rethink ....

 

[beatlesmith]

Well your first set of arguments make no sense because of the hypothetical. I mean Newmans case is worse because of what did happen. End of story.

If I drive home pissed tonight and hit no-one and I'm not picked up by police then there is no penalty, if instead I run into a police car and kill a police officer then the penalties will be terrible. Once you break the law, the consequences of your actions will determine the penalty to a great extent.

Newman broke the law and if he'd simply cut the guys face he wouldn't be in much trouble, if he'd killed the guy he'd be in more trouble, as it is he's in a lot of trouble.

Black had no degree of premeditation and nor did Voss, in addition they didn't do the same thing and weren't charged or found guilty of the same offence. So they were demonstrably different.

The fact that you feel they are kind of the same and Newman is unlucky misunderstands the law. The law does directly reflect, in part, the level of damage done. A concept many in here seem to be having trouble with.

If anyone here hits a "douche" in a bar (borrowing an earlier description that apparently applies to all victims of beatings in pubs) and said douche dies, you are ******. If they just suffer other life threatening injuries or injuries that potentially risk causing permanent damage then the shit is reasonably deep. If you're lucky and the guy just gets a blood nose you're probably ok. You swings your fists and you takes your chances.

This notion that it's just a pub punch and he's unlucky needs to be replaced with he hit someone unlawfully and he's lucky he didn't do more damage. And if Newman gets 2 years to illustrate that point then those of you who think it's no big deal and he's unlucky may have pause to rethink ....

I think you've misunderstood me.
I have no issue with the law adjudging consequences and making distinctions accordingly. The law has to do that to properly function. That's not what I'm talking about.
What I'm talking about is how the club judges Murray. Assuming he dodges the clink (however unlikely that may be), the club is able to make its own mind up independent of the rules and protocols that bind judges for the public good.
I don't think it's as simple as "he's guilty of GBH, sack him" because that's drawing a weird line in the sand using a law that itself draws a weird line in the sand.
Here the club should look at Murray's character as reflected by his actions, rather than the consequences, both legal and physical.
Of course there are other reasons why you'd be inclined to toss him out, like the example it sets and PR considerations.

 

[Eagle87]

I think you've misunderstood me.
I have no issue with the law adjudging consequences and making distinctions accordingly. The law has to do that to properly function. That's not what I'm talking about.
What I'm talking about is how the club judges Murray. Assuming he dodges the clink (however unlikely that may be), the club is able to make its own mind up independent of the rules and protocols that bind judges for the public good.
I don't think it's as simple as "he's guilty of GBH, sack him" because that's drawing a weird line in the sand using a law that itself draws a weird line in the sand.
Here the club should look at Murray's character as reflected by his actions, rather than the consequences, both legal and physical.
Of course there are other reasons why you'd be inclined to toss him out, like the example it sets and PR considerations.

Fair enough.

I just think that the club can't operate in a vacuum without regard to its community obligations including the perception this will create with some about our clubs view on Community violence.

In addition the club has to be able to demand and expect the best from all it's players AND it has to treat all future infringing players fairly (and this creates a tricky precedent in that regard).

I agree it's the clubs call separate from what the court says but it's a decision that runs the risk of some negative outcomes going forward.

 

[TOA.]

The club is in a hard position but I think given the amount of effort Murray has put in to get 'right' this preseason, to disregard or offload him because he was found guilty would be harsh and could potentially send him in a bad spiral. To put so much effort in, then get found guilty then be ditched by the club would leave him a in pretty bad state of mind given he is potentially facing jail time. I am happy we are continuing to support him.

 

[Frodo]

I have read this whole thread and it is a very strange place to see such comments.
I will make my comments shortly, but state that although I have no experience of criminal law I do have of civil law, and I understand how law in Australia works.
My main reason for migrating to Australia was to escape the class system endemic in the UK. Unfortunately law is one area which still follows those Victorian traits. I cringe at hearing of a judge valuing ones 'hands in the pocket' when his mind should fairly be on the matter at hand.
In my experience there are 5 good legal representatives for every 95 bad ones. The reason is simple, law is based upon precedent, therefore those without lateral thought but good at learning rote prevail. They are introduced to the 'system' which favours themselves and no others, the greed is sickening. It is truly an evil practice and the biggest failures end up at the DPP.

Taking this case alone, one must question at the foremost the inequity of privilege. If it were fair then it would be fair for all, but sadly that is not the case. The simple fact is that a young boy acted in an inappropriate way after provocation that at his age was catastrophised, as is often the case. If all youths were treated so then an argument of fairness may be reasonable, but the truth is that many such situations occur daily without recourse to law. Whilst voicing the following socially unacceptable fact we all know that a certain group of Australians commit GBH regularly yet few are ever taken to court and those that are get off cheaply. It is clear that Murray was singled out for special attention.
The fact that he was a young boy is important, had it been a more mature person then it would have been far more serious. But then, most mature persons committing GBH never go to court. Despite the legal definitions, which are all subject to interpretation and precedent. we all know what the body is and we all know what harm is to our own sensitivity. We all know grief too, so the accusation is simply ideological and sociological and has no place in truth.
I read mention of an adult, in Barry Hall, striking Brent Staker and breaking his jaw. If ever there was reason for protecting the community from outright unreasonable violence then this was a clear case, immensely more significant that that of victimising a young boy. Yet no action was taken at all, and that is the truth of our legal system. It is not a level playing field, it persecutes indiscriminately.
I truly hope that those that support such dishonesty receive fair judgement from life in equilibrium.

 

[larrikin]

It's arbitrary in that a fractured jaw is accepted as GBH when other, similar injuries are not. What constitutes "endangering life" and "permanent injury to health" is very much open to interpretation, having been guided by precedent that a lot of people in the legal community don't even agree with.

This is my issue with the whole thing.

He threw one punch in anger.

I've never thrown one, so really can't comment on that side, but was once on the receiving end in a basketball game. Was a school pick up game ( think it was year 12) and the guy didn't like having me call a foul on him, so he decked me (there'd been a build up in the game and it had got a bit tense). Full on punch to the face. Literally went down like a sack of shit.

I didn't do anything about it, a couple of mates had a massive go but that was about it.

I found out later he'd done it a number of times since...The guy was a ****wit, he needed to get his anger sorted, not sure if he ever has.

The reason for my story, is if Murray threw one punch as a teenager he wouldn't even get expelled from most of Perth's best schools. We seem to like punishing a consequence rather than an action....

Not at any level condoning his actions, just an effort around context.

 

[Eagle87]

This is my issue with the whole thing.

He threw one punch in anger.

I've never thrown one, so really can't comment on that side, but was once on the receiving end in a basketball game. Was a school pick up game ( think it was year 12) and the guy didn't like having me call a foul on him, so he decked me (there'd been a build up in the game and it had got a bit tense). Full on punch to the face. Literally went down like a sack of shit.

I didn't do anything about it, a couple of mates had a massive go but that was about it.

I found out later he'd done it a number of times since...The guy was a *******, he needed to get his anger sorted, not sure if he ever has.

The reason for my story, is if Murray threw one punch as a teenager he wouldn't even get expelled from most of Perth's best schools. We seem to like punishing a consequence rather than an action....

Not at any level condoning his actions, just an effort around context.

For clarity he threw a lot more than one punch.

It was agreed that the hitting lasted "around 30 seconds" and that the other guy was drunk and he indicated was not able to properly defend himself.

It's also true that 3.5 weeks of threats suggesting he was going to hurt the bloke were received badly by the court.

The fact the the consequences were bad should always factor into things. It's a fairly simple concept.

The earlier poster dribbling on about young boys... FFS ... He was a week shy of 19. He's now 20. He's been a professional footballer for a year. He can vote; drink; drive a car and own property.

Calling him "a young boy" is emotive nonsense. He's a young adult which may factor into sentencing.

He also wasn't "singled out". He committed an offence and was charged, it happens everyday.

 

[Matera92]

Out of curiosity has anyone here had a broken jaw?

I boxed at a fairly high level up until I was 26 and have been on the receiving end of one. Its a campaigner of an Injury and puts you in a fair amount of pain and distress.

I have no sympathy for Newman what so ever.

 

[QS]

It's arbitrary in that a fractured jaw is accepted as GBH

The fact the victim now permanently has plates holding what is left of the jaw together satisfies the definition of GBH rather easily. Opinion doesn't come into it, whether the result of an injury is GBH is a question of fact.

You asked before how we should react if the victim had died, but what if the victim had instead sustained a broken nose or lost a few teeth (see Daniel Kerr, 2007)? Suddenly it's assault or AOBH (not new charges for AFL players) and jail isn't even in the picture.

Yes, but 2013 is a far cry from 2007; we acknowledged as a club we were on the wrong path and have changed the culture. What was tolerated in 2007 is not, or should not be tolerated now. Simple as that, anything else is going backwards - if not, why is it not going backwards?

That's a bit disingenuous. GBH (2)-(4), GBH with intent, attempting to unlawfully kill, most serious assaults and most unlawful woundings are more serious than an "entry-level" GBH charge.

What is a serious assault? AOBH? Maximum penalty 7 years...
Wounding? Maximum penalty 5 years...
Attempt to unlawfully kill.. life (but this would require specific intent to bring about the killing so it is not really relevant here).
Point is GBH doesn't have levels of offending, a broken jaw could still be upper scale if accompanied by circumstances of aggravation that warrant it when assessing the offending in its totality. It is discretionary based upon how the circumstances as a whole are assessed by the trier of fact. The maximum penalty is 10 years which far exceeds s 301 or s 317!

...And now I have to get back to studying Tanzanian customary inheritance law.

Summer school?

We seem to like punishing a consequence rather than an action....

...and with good reason too. A punch that produces a 'hurt' is a different punch from one that causes a death, albeit the same originating act. Think about it this way, every person has a fundamental right not to be struck unlawfully nor their person interfered with. Thus there is a basic offence for breaching this right in the manner of common assault, a relatively small time offence; any undue consequences simply build upon this offence the same way adding pieces of lego make a tower. The further up the tower you go, the further one has to fall - same theory applies in criminal offences, the greater the negative consequences for the victim who has had their fundamental right interfered with, the further the accused must fall in order to be punished to a requisite degree.

 

[ytpme]

I think the best way to deal with the situation is to hit Murray Newman where it hurts most. Putting him in prison will do no good at all. Give him a suspended sentence and force him to compensate victim to the tune of $35,000.00. Not a crippling amount for his profession, but will certainly make him say ...ouch.

 

[larrikin]

...and with good reason too. A punch that produces a 'hurt' is a different punch from one that causes a death, albeit the same originating act. Think about it this way, every person has a fundamental right not to be struck unlawfully nor their person interfered with. Thus there is a basic offence for breaching this right in the manner of common assault, a relatively small time offence; any undue consequences simply build upon this offence the same way adding pieces of lego make a tower. The further up the tower you go, the further one has to fall - same theory applies in criminal offences, the greater the negative consequences for the victim who has had their fundamental right interfered with, the further the accused must fall in order to be punished to a requisite degree.

I guess I'm not even arguing against that. It's just that he seems a bit, I don't know, unlucky, that he got a good shot in.

I don't think that should protect him, it's probably more that the other ones are under-punished, if you know what I mean.

 

[pantskyle]

I hope he becomes our greatest ever player.

 

[Maxxyb]

Arguments about the arbitrary or otherwise nature of s297 – Grievous Bodily Harm are pointless at this stage. Murray has been charged, tried and convicted. He is a criminal and will be punished in accordance with the prescribed penalties and sentencing guidelines.

“Can I ask what happens if he is imprisoned? Let's say he gets 18 months, released after say 9 on bail. Do we keep him on the list for 2014 if he's in prison for bashing a bloke?”

The point is moot. The club has nailed it’s colours to the mast – I understand that to mean that regardless of the penalty handed down, they will stand by Newman and so the answer to your question is yes, yes we will.

“But let's put it this way, the Board ARE somewhat divided on this and there is certainly a view that we need to be very careful here.”

I would expect a board to be divided over this, much as contributors to the debate here are. It’s a very serious matter and one that goes to the heart of this disturbing trend of escalating violence in nightspots.

The judicial system will punish Murray, of that there is no doubt. Should he lose his job as well? In this instance his employer has elected not to go down that path and I respect that decision. I’d like to think the decision is one that reflects a genuine opportunity for rehabilitation while you see it as a selfish attempt to hang on to a potential A-grader, justified with a few throwaway motherhood statements. Perhaps the truth is somewhere in the middle.


So finally (audible sigh of relief echoes around BF), Murray done wrong. Whatever happens from here, he will carry this with him. If he does repay the club and live up to his apparent potential, the back page of the West will still read “Convicted Criminal wins Brownlow Medal”

 

[Double the Fist]

I guess I'm not even arguing against that. It's just that he seems a bit, I don't know, unlucky, that he got a good shot in.

With a strong arm, even a 'poor' punch can do massive damage. A head has many 'crumple' points, not to mention sensitive structures and tissues. He wanted to hurt the bloke IMO, and there is nothing 'unlucky' about any punch that is thrown that is intending to damage, and actually achieves this.

He is in deep poop.

 

[QS]

I guess I'm not even arguing against that. It's just that he seems a bit, I don't know, unlucky, that he got a good shot in.

I don't think that should protect him, it's probably more that the other ones are under-punished, if you know what I mean.

I know mate, was more just to outline the theory behind it for all, or at least how I have come to understand it. It's all about the outcome, that's why there are tiers of offences based on what actually occurs.. That doesn't mean I agree with it though... The whole violent offender punishment is out of whack with other potential based offences such as drink driving.. Nothing actually happens (95% of the time) but the potential for serious harm is there.