Good luck Hayne ,
You need to be a member of 1Eyed Eel to add comments!
Replies are closed for this discussion.
So in response to a comment from Poppa where i finished off with saying that i would be out of it due to an unplanned surgery i had to remove two stones from my right kidney, though why not pass time while i am home, off work to discuss if anyone…
Read more…Matt wrote an acorticle this morning in the Telegraph titled "A PUNCHY NSW REPLY." …
Read more…Its been reported today that Jarryd has finally been successful in appealing his rae conviction. …
Read more…
I can't help but acknowledge how much an improved team Canterbury have become . They are 2nd best defensive team in the comp. They are starting to tear broncos a new one . defence structure is easily the best I have seen this year. I don't think…
Read more…Doorey is a centre with Dom de Stradis making his cup debut starting in the backrow. The injury toll is really catching up.
Read more…I didn't watch the game last night 1st time in 4 years I've not watched a game couldn't be bothered driving 90mins to watch it live and the kids wanted to watch a movie to be honest I didn't even think about watching the game.Scoreboard doesn't look…
Read more…<script src="https://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>
<!-- Sidebar -->
<p> </p>
<script>// <![CDATA[
(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});
// ]]></script>
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.
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.