Rumour Premiership Tiger star in trouble with the law - Nathan Broad named as The Photographer

[Taylor]

IMO I don't care if it's a woman or a man. You consent to such a pic, you consent to it being shared. Just because something is 'the law' it doesn't mean it is right.

No, you don't. You consent to the picture being taken, that's it.

 

[Aramis]

Hang on, aren't you the person that has been posting that there is no civil lawful recourse here?

Please tell us how you arrived at this conclusion?

What? the conclusion of asking how you she would go about proceeding with a civil case?.....

 

[Bet on Blue]

When pre season kicks off Dusty can do the old cuffed hands gesture to his teammates in the clink. How poetic.

Nope - that's banned too. God forbid an AFL player express themselves in any way, shape or form. And people complain about the generic post-game interview answers. They're too bloody s**t-scared to say anything in case they offend somebody!

 

[The full package]

One exposed to one, one exposed to many. They aren't comparable.

Well if your willing to let a possible stranger take your photo, would you be happy to trust them? Pretty naive in my book.

BTW I have two teenage daughters that I educate about social media all the time, clearly this woman wasn't educated or maybe she knows exactly what she is doing.

Do I think it's wrong to share photo's with out consent, yes I do, do I think she is stupid for getting naked and letting someone take happy snaps in the world we live in today, yes again. Is he just as dumb to show off the photo's, YES!!!!

Like I said, treat phone camera's as the general public and you wont end up going viral for the wrong reasons.

 

[Aramis]

Your club had a charged rapist still playing footy hypocrite, it's called innocent until proven guilty.

Don't worry I told him about him the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing earlier too... this was his response...

I prefer, suspended impending outcome of trial.

 

[bigfarter]

That's a rather extreme analogy that's making something sound far more series than what it is. Her face isn't shown, she was willing to show her self publicly for another photo (which by the way is an offense) and I'm not saying he isn't stupid either. Just rather hypocritical she would somehow feel violated when clearly I think it is a attention seeking act. If you don't want it to go viral, then don't let a stranger take a photo of you topless and naked in public.

If it is in fact a exboyfriend, then that to me is totally different as a deeper level of trust has been broken. It was a consenting photo, what did she think was going to happen?

Very extreme analogy, I agree. Is it confirmed the two pics are of the same person? I'm seeing people claiming the outdoors photo is a different person which would negate the comment about her willingness to strip in public.

Look, I myself go by the logic "If you post it on social media or send it as a photo, presume it may get out in public" but the fact is that there are laws designed to prevent that and - despite me using that logic - I don't want to live in a society where a girlfriend is too frightened to send me a sexy photo because she just assumes I'll spread it around. That's why I think things like this should be charged (if the guy is guilty) and why I frown upon putting the onus on the victim.

EDIT TO ADD: Also, I read your initial post re: stripping in public as being about her working as a stripper. If you meant it in relation to that second photo, then I apologise for misinterpreting.

 

[BK Eaglesfan]

Wont be taking advice from some backyard lawyer..., Im the only one in this god damn thread who bothered looking at the actual law/statute.... My criminal understanding is thorough..... Civil; I agree I don't truly understand it, again I ask... please explain to me (with proper source) how she would go down the civil path (bearing in mind the outcome of the criminal matter is of no consequence).

From a lawyer in W.A's website (Marsdens Law Group) on the topic of compensation in revenge pr0n cases. Obviously seems a more extreme case, but resulted in a 5 figure payout.

Actions for breach of confidence

In a recent decision, the Western Australian Supreme Court held the defendant liable for a breach of confidence in respect of the non-consensual publication on his Facebook page of photographs and videos of the plaintiff. The facts of the case involved a set of circumstances which are becoming increasingly common – the images in question had been obtained during the course of a relationship between the parties, and at the time had been voluntarily shared by the plaintiff with the defendant. The later publication of these images is a classic case of what is now known as “revenge pr0n”.

The court applied the elements of breach of confidence to the facts and held the following:

• The explicit nature of the images was suggestive of their confidential character
• The images were not in the public domain prior to the defendant’s publication of them
• The obligation of confidence arose both implicitly (the understanding between the parties that the images would not be shared with anyone else) and specifically (the plaintiff had sent communications to the defendant seeking to confirm this understanding)
• The nature of the images and the circumstances in which they were obtained would make it obvious to any reasonable person that the images were for the defendant’s viewing only and not to be shared
• The defendant’s action in posting the images to his Facebook page (an action motivated by revenge) was a misuse of the images.
• If it was necessary for the plaintiff to show detriment, she had clearly established that she had experienced significant embarrassment, anxiety and distress, noting that she had taken time off work and received counselling.

The plaintiff was awarded $35,000 for her embarrassment and distress, with an additional $13,404 awarded for economic losses. The court also issued an injunction prohibiting any further publication of explicit images of the plaintiff.

 

[HairyO]

You are mixing up the 2 photos... 1. you have no way of knowing if thats the same girl

Bingo.

Hard to claim a breach of privacy when no-one knows who the hell you are...

 

[Aramis]

No, you don't. You consent to the picture being taken, that's it.

I'd say a step further if you consent to a picture being taken you're also consenting to the person who took it to use it/view it for personal use... the issue is when it gets "distributed".

 

[Aramis]

Bingo.

Hard to claim a breach of privacy when no-one knows who the hell you are...

The key word in the quote of mine you so carefully moulded was "YOU", you have no way of knowing if its the same girl, or knowing who it is, other people in society may be able to know who it is. As soon as her privacy is breached in the sense that 1 person can recognise who it is... bang that 1 section of 5 is satisfied. These aren't big hurdles for the prosecution to overcome.

affect on privacy is only 1 factor in a set of 5 that falls under "community standards"... heres the statute again...
All factors will be regarded....
Also defence is going to have problem's in court with the word "depicted"

always love a good bit of "selective quoting" when people quote me.

 

[HairyO]

I expect they have already taken statements. Good change the man who took the photo has acknowledged taking it, and the woman in question has confirmed it is her. That would be a decent start...

Actually, if the cops ever ask you questions you say nothing. Ask for a lawyer. And then the lawyer will most likely tell you to say nothing. Why volunteer info which can see you getting charged?

 

[ChesterTreasure]

The party is OVER
POLICE are probing a Richmond star over a topless photo scandal showing a young woman wearing his AFL Premiership medal.

Was her name Helen by any chance ?
If so she has kept herself in pretty good shape over the last 35 years !!!

 

[Snake_Baker]

I posted excerpts from the relevant sections of the Summary's act.... not sure why are you taking pot shots at me from afar....
Done a bit more than "year 12 legal studies" champ, not like I need to prove anything to some random backyard buffoon lawyer on bigfooty though.

I asked you a question and you just decide to throw s**t. Says more about you than it does me...

Okay, I didn't bother answering your question because it was absurd and highlighted your complete lack of understanding.

Here goes:

She will be compensated through VOCAT as a victim of crime....
This is a criminal case not a civil case.....

Show me where she is pursuing a civil case?

There are 12 year old kids that are aware that a civil matter must follow a criminal matter under these circumstances.

This is an absurd question. You are being ignorant, if you think this won't eventually progress down that path.

In fact, I expect Civil representation to be working with her criminal defence counsel IF this matter goes to trial, and I don't believe it will.

Unless the alleged player in question can produce a very solid defence of implied consent, which is not supported by tabloid reporting, then this will become a plea with an "undisclosed" payout.

 

[Aramis]

This is an absurd question. You are being ignorant, if you think this won't eventually progress down that path.

There are 12 year old kids that are aware that a civil matter must follow a criminal matter in these circumstances.

In fact, I expect Civil representation to be working with her criminal defence counsel IF this matter goes to trial, and I don't believe it will.

Unless the alleged player in question can produce a very solid defence of implied consent, which is not supported by tabloid reporting, then this will become a plea with an "undisclosed" payout.

Must follow? complete and utter rubbish, its a completely personal decision....
its 2 completely seperate things yet you conjoin the 2 into some quasi-criminal/civil mega case....

2 issues here...
1 - The criminal case.... did the bloke broke the law? yes or no.... (shes a victim of crime so shes entitled to VOCAT compensation)

2 - the civil case.... IF she decides to go for more damages (in a civil case, seperate case from the aforementioned criminal one) she has to prove there was some kind of substantial loss of income or damage. (as ive mentioned about 3-4 times now, my knowledge of civil proceedings isnt large and I've asked multiple times.. please explain to me on what grounds she would go down the civil path and in what sense would she seek compensation/"a payout")

 

[The full package]

Very extreme analogy, I agree. Is it confirmed the two pics are of the same person? I'm seeing people claiming the outdoors photo is a different person which would negate the comment about her willingness to strip in public.

Look, I myself go by the logic "If you post it on social media or send it as a photo, presume it may get out in public" but the fact is that there are laws designed to prevent that and - despite me using that logic - I don't want to live in a society where a girlfriend is too frightened to send me a sexy photo because she just assumes I'll spread it around. That's why I think things like this should be charged (if the guy is guilty) and why I frown upon putting the onus on the victim.

EDIT TO ADD: Also, I read your initial post re: stripping in public as being about her working as a stripper. If you meant it in relation to that second photo, then I apologise for misinterpreting.

Look I think some onus should be placed on the victim, now I'm not going to jump in with she was wearing a short skirt so she deserved to be raped, because there is no excuse for rape crimes but, if she is topless and posing for the photo, with what I can assume maybe a fling, then you have to say does she need to take some ownership of all this.

Also if the outdoors person is indeed another person then that would change things quite considerably. It would be good to see some legal action as I do think it is right but, what did she expect?
If the rolls were reversed, In my hey day if I let a newly acquainted AFLW girl take a photo of my johnson, with a medal hanging off it, then that's my doing as well and cant complain. Yes it's wrong to make it public but you just have to take ownership of it as well. This will test out the social media laws.

 

[Aramis]

Look I think some onus should be placed on the victim, now I'm not going to jump in with she was wearing a short skirt so she deserved to be raped, because there is no excuse for rape crimes but, if she is topless and posing for the photo, with what I can assume maybe a fling, then you have to say does she need to take some ownership of all this.

Also if the outdoors person is indeed another person then that would change things quite considerably. It would be good to see some legal action as I do think it is right but, what did she expect?
If the rolls were reversed, In my hey day if I let a newly acquainted AFLW girl take a photo of my johnson, with a medal hanging off it, then that's my doing as well and cant complain. Yes it's wrong to make it public but you just have to take ownership of it as well. This will test out the social media laws.

Remember, only ONE photo is being pursued (the front on breast photo). The one outside the club is fine.
What you're exploring is all the "implied consent"... heres the statute if you want to see what the law says about it all...

 

[BK Eaglesfan]

Must follow? complete and utter rubbish, its a completely personal decision....
its 2 completely seperate things yet you conjoin the 2 into some quasi-criminal/civil mega case....

Honestly, you've both provided some solid points to this thread but ended up miles apart and both supporting black and white positions out of line with reality.

Aramis - much of the last few pages has come about to refute your position that this lady can NOT benefit financially other than a small VOCAT payout.

Equally, to state that a civil matter MUST follow a criminal matter is equally extreme and incorrect in the other direction.

This lady has the right to pursue civil damages and Aramis, I have posted an excerpt in a previous post direct from a lawyer on a precedent of how she could do that. Will she go that path or win if she did? Who knows. Can she. Yes. Is it a definite she MUST go that path? No (though society probably insinuates that is her motivation by bringing any criminal complaint in the first instance).

 

[Aramis]

Honestly, you've both provided some solid points to this thread but ended up miles apart and both supporting black and white positions out of line with reality.

Aramis - much of the last few pages has come about to refute your position that this lady can NOT benefit financially other than a small VOCAT payout.

Equally, to state that a civil matter MUST follow a criminal matter is equally extreme and incorrect in the other direction.

This lady has the right to pursue civil damages and Aramis, I have posted an excerpt in a previous post direct from a lawyer on a precedent of how she could do that. Will she go that path or win if she did? Who knows. Can she. Yes. Is it a definite she MUST go that path? No (though society probably insinuates that is her motivation by bringing any criminal complaint in the first instance).

I've been enquiring multiple times on the last few pages for someone to explain the civil matter to me (which I agree I know little about).

 

[BK Eaglesfan]

Okay, I didn't bother answering your question because it was absurd and highlighted your complete lack of understanding.

Here goes:



There are 12 year old kids that are aware that a civil matter must follow a criminal matter under these circumstances.

This is an absurd question. You are being ignorant, if you think this won't eventually progress down that path.

In fact, I expect Civil representation to be working with her criminal defence counsel IF this matter goes to trial, and I don't believe it will.

Unless the alleged player in question can produce a very solid defence of implied consent, which is not supported by tabloid reporting, then this will become a plea with an "undisclosed" payout.

That last bit of the last sentence.....that is the most likely outcome I can see unfolding. At best a he said / she said for prosecutors to sift through unless the player outright admits he sent it deliberately without consent. I suspect prosecutors will be glad to see the back of it.

 

[BK Eaglesfan]

I've been enquiring multiple times on the last few pages for someone to explain the civil matter to me (which I agree I know little about).

Which has been done...posted part of an article straight off a lawyer's website and you've re-requested someone to explain it multiple times since that was posted.

 

[Aramis]

Which has been done...posted part of an article straight off a lawyer's website and you've re-requested someone to explain it multiple times since that was posted.

Obviously missed it, I'll go back and have a look...

 

[branedotorg]

Wont be taking advice from some backyard lawyer..., Im the only one in this god damn thread who bothered looking at the actual law/statute.... My criminal understanding is thorough..... Civil; I agree I don't truly understand it, again I ask... please explain to me (with proper source) how she would go down the civil path (bearing in mind the outcome of the criminal matter is of no consequence).

loss of earnings if the embarrassment causes her lose or quit a job?

Although *if* she is a dancer it might be argued that notoriety has financial value, that would be a scumbag argument though

 

[Bet on Blue]

 

[FrakturedHalo]

Or perhaps the player in question shouldn’t be sending naked pictures of her without her permission. Whether you can see her face is irrelevant, when he sent the picture the people he sent it to would more than likely have been told who it was or would have known.

Men dont own women’s bodies under any circumstances and vice versa. Nobody gets to decide who can see someone else’s body.

I'm not saying I agree with what he's done or victim blaming or any of that so calm down cowboy, what I meant to make a point about and obviously failed in the Delivery is it's not revenge pr0n, and by the media and whoever else classifying it as such is going to potentially set a detrimental precedent

 

[TW Sherrin]

do any of the photo show her face?