Rumour Rumors of cat player in big trouble

[MightyAnfield]

both are ridiculous

I don’t care about the injury list or the discussion it has created.

Why is the suppression order ridiculous?
Do you know why it has been put in place?
If so, please explain.

And, to an earlier post of yours: at the moment it is a criminal matter that is slated for the County Court.

It HAS to be heard by a judge and jury in Victoria.

It will not. And cannot be a trial by judge alone. Happy to concede this if a criminal lawyer tells me otherwise.

 

[Daka]

I don't get how one person can be named and not the other...
most certainly not to protect the victim if that's the case.

 

[mighty_lions]

I don’t care about the injury list or the discussion it has created.

Why is the suppression order ridiculous?
Do you know why it has been put in place?
If so, please explain.

And, to an earlier post of yours: at the moment it is a criminal matter that is slated for the County Court.

It HAS to be heard by a judge and jury in Victoria.

It will not. And cannot be a trial by judge alone. Happy to concede this if a criminal lawyer tells me otherwise.

The suppression order made no sense since it was already reported on in the media in October that he was being interviewed, I live in Queensland so I am not aware of the laws in Victoria but I would assume that a defendant can request a judge trial, the Chris Dawson trial was a judge only case this rarely happens because like I said it only takes 1 person with 1 agenda to have hung jury/retrial

 

[MightyAnfield]

I don't get how one person can be named and not the other...
most certainly not to protect the victim if that's the

I don't get how one person can be named and not the other...
most certainly not to protect the victim if that's the case.

In sexual assault cases the starting point for information becoming public is based around what will identify the alleged victim.
All sorts of things can do that and are different for each person charged with offences.
That said, many things get reported from the first mention hearing in court that are later not allowed to be reported from later appearances in court.

 

[GudOnya]

Things might have changed since I was vaguely involved but some 15+ years ago the AFL were required to publicly list all players that were unavailable for selection as a part of their gambling agreements. I can't actually remember if it was a requirement from the regulators or the market providers but it was still a requirement to list them as unavailable. An accurate reason for the player being unavailable wasn't included in that.

 

[Daka]

In sexual assault cases the starting point for information becoming public is based around what will identify the alleged victim.
All sorts of things can do that and are different for each person charged with offences.
That said, many things get reported from the first mention hearing in court that are later not allowed to be reported from later appearances in court.

It's already been leaked by the official website of the court. it was already well known who it was well before the leak, so it's obviously not protecting anyone now.

 

[MightyAnfield]

The suppression order made no sense since it was already reported on in the media in October that he was being interviewed, I live in Queensland so I am not aware of the laws in Victoria but I would assume that a defendant can request a judge trial, the Chris Dawson trial was a judge only case this rarely happens because like I said it only takes 1 person with 1 agenda to have hung jury/retrial

The suppression order made no sense since it was already reported on in the media in October that he was being interviewed, I live in Queensland so I am not aware of the laws in Victoria but I would assume that a defendant can request a judge trial, the Chris Dawson trial was a judge only case this rarely happens because like I said it only takes 1 person with 1 agenda to have hung jury/retrial

The Chris Dawson trial was different in many ways - not just the jurisdiction.

He was charged on the back of a high profile podcast on a previously high profile case that had received masses of media attention saying he did it BEFORE he was charged.

This is AFTER the person has been charged.

The difference is vital.

many things may have happened after this player was initially charged in court that required the subsequent suppression order to be put in place to allow him and the alleged victim to participate in a fair trial.

It happens often. Just not always with people that have a public profile.

 

[mighty_lions]

The Chris Dawson trial was different in many ways - not just the jurisdiction.

He was charged on the back of a high profile podcast on a previously high profile case that had received masses of media attention saying he did it BEFORE he was charged.

This is AFTER the person has been charged.

The difference is vital.

many things may have happened after this player was initially charged in court that required the subsequent suppression order to be put in place to allow him and the alleged victim to participate in a fair trial.

It happens often. Just not always with people that have a public profile.

I know they are different my point was that they happen when necessary

 

[MightyAnfield]

It's already been leaked by the official website of the court. it was already well known who it was well before the leak, so it's obviously not protecting anyone now.

Protecting and identifying are different things.
The court clearly stuffed up. I think other posts said it had since been removed.
is it well known outside footy fans?
I don’t know the answer to that.
I’m sure plenty of people could walk past the person in the street and not know who he is.

 

[MightyAnfield]

I know they are different my point was that they happen when necessary

And my point was that one was before being charged and the other is after being charged. Therefore the example is not relevant.

 

[mighty_lions]

And my point was that one was before being charged and the other is after being charged. Therefore the example is not relevant.

I wasn't talking about this case specifically, it was a generalised comment about how it is possible....

 

[Daka]

Protecting and identifying are different things.
The court clearly stuffed up. I think other posts said it had since been removed.
is it well known outside footy fans?
I don’t know the answer to that.
I’m sure plenty of people could walk past the person in the street and not know who he is.

I think a lot of casual footy fans/non footy fans would know, that don't go on forums like this.
as it's been talked about & even trended on popular social platforms for hours.

 

[mighty_lions]

I think a lot of casual footy fans/non footy fans would know, that don't go on forums like this.
as it's been talked about & even trended on popular social platforms for hours.

I was walking to the game Brisbane vs Geelong and random people walking next to me where talking about it

 

[MightyAnfield]

I think a lot of casual footy fans/non footy fans would know, that don't go on forums like this.
as it's been talked about & even trended on popular social platforms for hours.

Agree.
Legislation around this kind of issue has not caught up with digital platforms.
It’s a problem because it crosses jurisdictional boundaries.
I’m just trying to explain some of the reasons behind why courts sometimes do what they do.

 

[The Feeder Club]

At the end of the day, the suppression order has been put in place because it’s deemed necessary for justice to not only be done, but to be seen to done.

Tosh. The whole principle of open justice is that there is transparent public scrutiny of the court, its proceedings and decisions. The historical impetus for open justice was because behind closed doors the rich and powerful manipulated the law to escape punishment.
Suppression orders are the antithesis of justice being " seen to be done"

 

[MightyAnfield]

I wasn't talking about this case specifically, it was a generalised comment about how it is possible....

First you said it was a fallacy that it had to be trial by jury in this case.

Then it was an assumption that you could have a trial without a jury.

Now it’s just a general comment on it being possible by citing a case, but not one that is relevant and then saying you don’t specifically mean the one you mentioned.

 

[sosos]

Tosh. The whole principle of open justice is that there is transparent public scrutiny of the court, its proceedings and decisions. The historical impetus for open justice was because behind closed doors the rich and powerful manipulated the law to escape punishment.
Suppression orders are the antithesis of justice being " seen to be done"

But sexual assault cases are way more loaded, due to the intensely personal nature of the accusations. A long way from the rich and powerful avoiding scrutiny for their crimes. So I can understand the court's decision to issue the order.

 

[MightyAnfield]

Tosh. The whole principle of open justice is that there is transparent public scrutiny of the court, its proceedings and decisions. The historical impetus for open justice was because behind closed doors the rich and powerful manipulated the law to escape punishment.
Suppression orders are the antithesis of justice being " seen to be done"

I agree with the principle of open justice. I have argued in court before a magistrate against one while waiting for a lawyer to turn up and take over. But that was in the 90’s.
Suppression orders have there place if they prevent the jury from knowing things that are not relevant to the case at hand. It’s why priors are not admissible.
Open justice happens.
You and I can sit in a court where a suppression order is in place and watch justice happen. That is justice being seen to be done.
They do not prevent transparent public scrutiny of the proceedings and the decision because when that decision is made the order is lifted. The media reports everything that they previously weren’t allowed to report.
It happens regularly. From memory, One well known drug dealer spent more than 10 years going through the court system until the various suppression orders were lifted and then it was open season on him.

 

[MightyAnfield]

Tosh. The whole principle of open justice is that there is transparent public scrutiny of the court, its proceedings and decisions. The historical impetus for open justice was because behind closed doors the rich and powerful manipulated the law to escape punishment.
Suppression orders are the antithesis of justice being " seen to be done"

And Tosh is a greatly underrated word.
Good character in the UK crime show The Bill as well.

 

[The Feeder Club]

I agree with the principle of open justice. I have argued in court before a magistrate against one while waiting for a lawyer to turn up and take over. But that was in the 90’s.
Suppression orders have there place if they prevent the jury from knowing things that are not relevant to the case at hand. It’s why priors are not admissible.
Open justice happens.
You and I can sit in a court where a suppression order is in place and watch justice happen. That is justice being seen to be done.
They do not prevent transparent public scrutiny of the proceedings and the decision because when that decision is made the order is lifted. The media reports everything that they previously weren’t allowed to report.
It happens regularly. From memory, One well known drug dealer spent more than 10 years going through the court system until the various suppression orders were lifted and then it was open season on him.

Open justice isn't confined to someone wandering into a court to watch proceedings. It includes the right of the press to report on these so the public at large is informed. There will be extraordinary cases for which a gag would be put on the press to stop reporting regardless of where the case is being heard. But you're defending an outlier justice system here which is out of step with peer jurisdictions

 

[iameviljez]

I don't get how one person can be named and not the other...
most certainly not to protect the victim if that's the case.

There are a number of reasons why a high-profile person might not be named.

For one thing, the ensuing media circus that will result might make it extremely hard to pick a jury who are then unaware of media reporting on the case, on the player, the deep-dive into the player's background, etc. This raises the possibility of a mistrial, which benefits nobody.

It may also be because the player is recognisable and the presumption of innocence is important. I wouldn't recognise his rando mate if I bumped into him. I'd probably recognise the player.

 

[Pragmatic Shill]

Geez I wonder what happened to innocent until proven guilty. When it comes to these sort of accusations the names of the parties involved should be suppressed until the case has been decided as even if the accused is found to be innocent there's still lingering stigma attached that can have damaging on-going repercussions in the professional and personal lives of the accused. I know that there's those lefty white knights who think every woman walking on earth is incapable of lying but spitefulness is part of the human condition and there are plenty of vindictive strumpets out there who don't have any problem stooping that low to get even for whatever slight they think they've suffered from a guy.

Trust a Geelong supporter to come in with this take. And trust an absolute cooker to turn sexual assault into a left/right dichotomous issue. What an absolute farcical statement.

Multiple studies from credible sources such as UK Crown Prosecution Service or the US National Sexual Violence Resource Center have shown that false reports of sexual assault occur in at the very most 10 per cent of cases. And that's if we're using a strict definition of "false" to mean malicious intent. It's far more common that there's an underreporting of sexual assault.

But here you walk in, having no doubt "done your own research" and figured out the world, proclaiming "innocent until proven guilty, every woman that reports rape is really just ashamed of their own sexual proclivities, anyone who disagrees with me is a loony lefty!" All because the accused is a player for the club you support.

Open the other eye mate, and stop downplaying the seriousness of a crime that remains all too prevalent in the world. It's not even an issue that you said "innocent until proven guilty," but you instantly went to the other extreme of suggesting rape accusations are by and large false and that's the real crime here - not the over 90 per cent of rape accusations that turn out to be legitimate or the rapes that go unreported because of stigma or fear of persecution.

By the way, not sure you realise how much of an own goal it is for "your side" to suggest that only left-wing people give a shit about rape accusations.

 

[iameviljez]

Trust a Geelong supporter to come in with this take.

Most of the rest of us have pretty strongly disavowed this point of view. "Interesting" people at every club.

 

[Pragmatic Shill]

Most of the rest of us have pretty strongly disavowed this point of view. "Interesting" people at every club.

I didn't make that statement as a reflection of all Geelong supporters - just that out of anyone to come in and start throwing claims of false rape accusations around it's most likely going to be a Geelong supporter given who this story is about.

 

[sexyhunk]

Trust a Geelong supporter to come in with this take. And trust an absolute cooker to turn sexual assault into a left/right dichotomous issue. What an absolute farcical statement.

Multiple studies from credible sources such as UK Crown Prosecution Service or the US National Sexual Violence Resource Center have shown that false reports of sexual assault occur in at the very most 10 per cent of cases. And that's if we're using a strict definition of "false" to mean malicious intent. It's far more common that there's an underreporting of sexual assault.

But here you walk in, having no doubt "done your own research" and figured out the world, proclaiming "innocent until proven guilty, every woman that reports rape is really just ashamed of their own sexual proclivities, anyone who disagrees with me is a loony lefty!" All because the accused is a player for the club you support.

Open the other eye mate, and stop downplaying the seriousness of a crime that remains all too prevalent in the world. It's not even an issue that you said "innocent until proven guilty," but you instantly went to the other extreme of suggesting rape accusations are by and large false and that's the real crime here - not the over 90 per cent of rape accusations that turn out to be legitimate or the rapes that go unreported because of stigma or fear of persecution.

By the way, not sure you realise how much of an own goal it is for "your side" to suggest that only left-wing people give a shit about rape accusations.

now now, didnt the most famous Collingwood support got done for child s3x abuse? easy for me to then say all collingwood supporters cut from the same cloth but that would be stupid wouldn't it.