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

Randy Handlinger replied to Eelawarra's discussion RYLES REVEALS WHY HE SIGNED PEZET FOR ONE YEAR
"and I wouldn't call 1yr a "stint"...maybe a "stunt" or a "layover" but not a stint"
6 minutes ago
Blue Eel replied to Eelawarra's discussion RYLES REVEALS WHY HE SIGNED PEZET FOR ONE YEAR
"Interesting way to look at it. Does that mean we are looking that way at others with no contract with us past this year, ie
Dylan Walker
Junior Paulo
Josh Addo Carr
Ryan Matterson
and the other 4 or 5
 "
8 minutes ago
Blue Eel replied to Eelawarra's discussion RYLES REVEALS WHY HE SIGNED PEZET FOR ONE YEAR
"If it outguns Papalii in the preseason why wouldn't we play him in firsts. Love how Ryles said "we will just let them fight it out in preseason". 
 "
12 minutes ago
Coryn Hughes replied to Eelawarra's discussion RYLES REVEALS WHY HE SIGNED PEZET FOR ONE YEAR
"No they won't the position is Pezets to lose.Theyll say competition but there won't be Pezet will be Parras 6 next year.
Garrick and Simonsson to potentially to offset the loss of Lomax.god only at the Eels can you lose talent like Brown and the…"
13 minutes ago
Eli Stephens replied to Cumberland Eel's discussion Lomax Gone
"It's gone quiet so let's wait and see, Braith hasn't said anything really since he broke that rumour "
17 minutes ago
Cʜɪᴇғy Mclovin 🐐 replied to Eelawarra's discussion RYLES REVEALS WHY HE SIGNED PEZET FOR ONE YEAR
"So you'd prefer to sacrifice the 2026 season because you don't like the donkeys.  That's a great strategical move Coryn. Im glad you're nowhere near recruitment & retention champion. "
18 minutes ago
Coryn Hughes replied to Cumberland Eel's discussion Lomax Gone
"Hope not I don't care what anyone says we can't afford to lose Lomax.Our back 5 is piss poor without him."
22 minutes ago
Cʜɪᴇғy Mclovin 🐐 replied to Eelawarra's discussion RYLES REVEALS WHY HE SIGNED PEZET FOR ONE YEAR
"Did you read what Ryles said.  They'll battle it out in the pre season and the 6 jumper isn't black and white "
23 minutes ago
Blue Eel replied to Rabz S's discussion Jonah Pezet Joins Parramatta Eels - OFFICIAL
""
24 minutes ago
Eli Stephens replied to Cumberland Eel's discussion Lomax Gone
"Tbf just reading this post it sounds like something Braith said weeks ago lol, don't think any new Lomax info has come out "
24 minutes ago
Yehez replied to Eelawarra's discussion RYLES REVEALS WHY HE SIGNED PEZET FOR ONE YEAR
"WHy? I think we truly wanted him long term but as we saw with Dylan, if someone's not in the plans they get dropped. Because Hawkins was leaving we thought might as well get this guy for 1 year to provide cover but also play when Moses away/injured…"
24 minutes ago
Poupou Escobar replied to Eelawarra's discussion RYLES REVEALS WHY HE SIGNED PEZET FOR ONE YEAR
"Why bullshit? Do we owe him a spot in the 17? It's not like we need to worry about losing him. He's already gone."
25 minutes ago
Coryn Hughes replied to Cumberland Eel's discussion Lomax Gone
"FUCK FUCK fffaaaarrrrrrkk."
27 minutes ago
Yehez replied to Cumberland Eel's discussion Lomax Gone
"As long as Simonsson is around and up for it, this is no big deal and alleviates some space. If we sign Garrick, even better.
Simonsson - Penisini - Garrick - AddoCarr      is quite a good backline.
 "
28 minutes ago
Yehez replied to Cumberland Eel's discussion Lomax Gone
"Thought Bloomfield was a centre/fullback? Haven't seen him named at wing."
29 minutes ago
Poupou Escobar replied to Cumberland Eel's discussion Lomax Gone
"So if coaches are responsible for signing players, why are you blaming MON?"
30 minutes ago
More…

 

Lomax Gone

Just listening to Braith Anasta who has stated that Lomax won't be playing with Parra in 2026 and that's he's basically signed with Rugby Union. Anasta reckons he will not play NRL again and will likely move to UK to prepare for the October start of…

Read more…
25 Replies · Reply by Eli Stephens 17 minutes ago
Views: 647

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