Replies

  • This is ridiculous, how many times does a man have to front up to court over this.

    I hope it's not chewing up tax payers money.

    • I doubt Hayne was ever on legal aid where the government pays an accused legal fees . Hayne would likely have paid out of his pocket as much as it cost to keep his new legal team going including senior counsels ( SC / QC 's ) for now three trials plus his  appeal to the Court of Appeal.  If he was on legal aid there is a chance the new trials would not have proceeded so as to reduce / eliminate future public legal aid bills for representing him .  

      • Driza, I don't understand how a man that's been found 'guilty' can have another trial to prove he's not guilty?

        • That mean's you don't understand the appeal system JB and why i repeatedly suspect your low intellect.

          • Yes Poppa I don't understand the system totally, I've never been in trouble with the law and neither has anyone close to me.

            I really don't understand how someone can have enough evidence stacked up against them to be convicted but then come back for a re-trial only to be proven not guilty.

            Sounds like a circus to me and a waste of taxpayers money.

            • Surely you have heard of "appeals" JB and again if you had half a brain you would know it was a hung jury the first time and close to it the second time...."enough evidence stacked up" is not relevant if not accepted for any number of reasons, e.g. a court found Cardinal Pell guilty and a team of high court judges dismissed all the charges.

              Maybe it less Bugs Bunny on TV for you JB and one or two of the thousand TV shows that cover the law......if you ever do get caught by the law JB a quick insanity plead should be enough for you along with extracts from IEE under your name.

            • An appeal can ony be granter when evidence is not allowed to be presented in the original trial or evidenve has been found that could impact the original decision.

          • John as you know , fortunately people are no longer burnt to the stake after mere suspicion of practising which craft . A person charged by police ( called the accused or defendant ) is entitled to procedural fairness both during the police investigation and as well during the court process. The procedural fairness owed to him /her during the court hearing ( in Haynes case the court hearing was one of trial by jury ) includes that the trial judge properly instructs the jury as to the lawful way the jury is to weigh up the evidence in determining the accused's guilt or innocence of the charge . In the first trial the jury were not able to arrive at the required majority decision to make a finding of guilty ( i.e. called " a hung jury"  ) in respect of Hayne . 

          In the second trial the required numbers in a different jury of 12 people found Hayne guilty . Hayne thought the second jury's decision was unfair so he used his legal right to appeal to a higher court . Hayne persuaded the court hearing his appeal to both set aside the finding of guilt by the jury as well as Haynes conviction by the court that had followed the jury's decision .(  The reason for the appeal courts decision was I think from memory that the trial judge incorrectly instructed the jury as to the way they should arrive at their decision (meaning Hayne was wrongly convicted and that is why he is entitled to a new trial ) . This requirement for @procedural fairness has been in our legal system since we first inherited from England when the first fleet arrived in 1788 . 

          • Witchcraft sorry not which craft . ( You know riding on a broomstick lol )

        • JB that is why our system is considered one of the most fairest in the land with built in corrections through the whole process.

          For the uninitiated and just for clarity in a nut shell

          1st Trial the jury couldnt agree on guilt 

          2nd Trial - At end of the end of the trial as the Judge explained legal principles to the new jury , These directions are provided to the jury by the judge at the end of a trial and provide guidance on how to apply the law, before they deliberated.  She made statements that were not true about the case. She used phrases that were meant to lead the jury into what they have to consider, her phrases were deemed extreme and had no basis in law. The result was the Jury were mislead by the judge in what they had to consider to find guilt, she basically changed the rules.

          Officailly the Appeal judges found that "Judge Syme's directions to the Jury were so Flawed that it neccesitated the appeal to be allowed" 

          Hope that helps. For the record if you were going away to Jail for an extended time wouldnt you at least want the process to be correct and beyond reproach.

This reply was deleted.

Latest comments

adnan replied to Johnny Suede's discussion Lomax legal promise could create salary-cap headache for Storm
"they need to be careful they dont create a precedence"
11 minutes ago
Mitchy replied to Johnny Suede's discussion Lomax legal promise could create salary-cap headache for Storm
"The Storm will not enforce this. That is my gut feeling here; they should but we know they no nuts."
16 minutes ago
Mitchy replied to ParramattaLurker's discussion Trial #2 / Pre Season Challenge Week 3 Team List v Sydney Roosters
"Daz, I think we are going to be in a stronger spot in 12 months - with some of these players having almost 2 seasons under their belts. Issue is always going to be around Moses and injury and Pez (Dispenser) helps here. 
We are not buying players…"
18 minutes ago
Mitchy replied to ParramattaLurker's discussion Trial #2 / Pre Season Challenge Week 3 Team List v Sydney Roosters
"Bear  I read that too and had a laugh; Parra make clicks it seems. How abt Easts / Manly / C'bury / Melb and Souffs? Ryles is going along in a smart way for me. Journos can talk tripe."
21 minutes ago
HKF replied to Johnny Suede's discussion Lomax legal promise could create salary-cap headache for Storm
"you can guarantee the NRL will NOT include this in the storms salary cap."
21 minutes ago
RB replied to Johnny Suede's discussion Lomax legal promise could create salary-cap headache for Storm
"Ahaha this is just too good. I'd love to know if this hadn't have gone to court, if this would've been off the books. Salary cap cheaters doing what they do best."
29 minutes ago
Adam Magrath replied to Johnny Suede's discussion Lomax legal promise could create salary-cap headache for Storm
"Sure are, that's exactly what I was thinking with the mental health claims. They (Lomax) are digging themselves a bigger and bigger hole the further this progresses. "
33 minutes ago
Muttman replied to Johnny Suede's discussion Lomax legal promise could create salary-cap headache for Storm
"Eels are playing this beautifully "
41 minutes ago
The Badger replied to Johnny Suede's discussion Lomax legal promise could create salary-cap headache for Storm
"Damn well should. 
Given we had to include Fui's family flights then these legal fees should for sure."
52 minutes ago
Prof. Daz replied to ParramattaLurker's discussion Trial #2 / Pre Season Challenge Week 3 Team List v Sydney Roosters
"I'm with you, Blue Eel. It's boom or bust for Ryles. I say that not because it's fair that a second year coach is expected to get the team into the finals and strongly compete for top honours. It's probably not. But the Eels have been so starved of…"
1 hour ago
Hell On Eels replied to Hell On Eels's discussion The Eels v Lomax: Timeline and Key Questions
"Ironically, around 13 Jan, when Storm agreed to pay Lomax's legal fees (could cause cap implications) was also when Tripp allegedly called Beach to threaten that the Eels could be hit with cap sanctions by the NRL.
 
NRL.com official salary cap…"
1 hour ago
Flow Basket replied to ParramattaLurker's discussion Trial #2 / Pre Season Challenge Week 3 Team List v Sydney Roosters
"Kicker that's easy Russell "
2 hours ago
Blue Eel replied to Johnny Suede's discussion Lomax legal promise could create salary-cap headache for Storm
"Dont you love a feel good story !
Love that if Melbourne were to win and Lomax's contract with the Storm was confirmed, the fact that Lomax's legal bills would go on top of their salary cap even though they don't have that cap space is just…"
2 hours ago
John Seckold replied to ParramattaLurker's discussion Trial #2 / Pre Season Challenge Week 3 Team List v Sydney Roosters
"There is no way Moses will be Half -hearted in the trial. That is a good way to get injured. The game is important in getting real game time into testing and improving the new halves combo even for a short time. Above all I am hoping to see the…"
3 hours ago
Coryn Hughes replied to ParramattaLurker's discussion Trial #2 / Pre Season Challenge Week 3 Team List v Sydney Roosters
"If everything goes well I have no doubt we play finals footy no doubt at all.If Moses can't finish the year we'll finish around the same spot as this year.
The start and SoO period is the key if go well early it sets the year up.Get through the last…"
5 hours ago
Mallee57 replied to ParramattaLurker's discussion Trial #2 / Pre Season Challenge Week 3 Team List v Sydney Roosters
"Whose going to do the main goal kicking this year? Moses, Pezet, Russell ? Or maybe another? Pezet is very good. Moses very good, Russell ok but struggles with kicks that are closer to the sidelines. "
11 hours ago
More…

Keaon done deal

As of Thursday, December 11, 2025, South Sydney Rabbitohs forwardKeaon Koloamatangi has reportedly agreed to a deal with the Parramatta Eels, but it is not yet officially announced by the clubs.  Soon to be announced.

Read more…
14 Replies · Reply by Poppa Jan 9
Views: 2088

 

<script src="https://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>
<!-- Sidebar -->
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<script>// <![CDATA[
(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});
// ]]></script>