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

Parrafan101 replied to Muttman's discussion Eels win in the Supreme Court
"Parra have enough information that could possibly put the NRL and storms exposed which this could possibly or potentially start a war and a super league like comp being form."
1 minute ago
Rabz S replied to ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER's discussion We win the count case weget $250.000 of the storm
"No, the money goes to wherever PARRA paid the legal fees from."
3 minutes ago
Rabz S replied to Blue Eel's discussion The last of the BA Era.
"Didn't he recently get another concussion?
Surely medical retirement is on the cards now."
4 minutes ago
Rabz S replied to Muttman's discussion Eels win in the Supreme Court
""
5 minutes ago
Hell On Eels replied to Muttman's discussion Eels win in the Supreme Court
"It's also interesting Paul Crawley stopped writing about this for Foxsport (he was voraciously pro-Eels, anti-Lomax) as soon as V'landys broke his two-week plus silence. After that, they all were written by Steve Zemek or the generic Foxsport team…"
26 minutes ago
LB replied to Muttman's discussion Eels win in the Supreme Court
"I find it hard to believe that would have been enough to get deal done."
30 minutes ago
Hell On Eels replied to Muttman's discussion Eels win in the Supreme Court
"Folks, We defeated the Storm and HQ, who would've probably registered Lomax's Storm contract if it weren't for this legal action. But a 1-2 year read-down was highly likely as I've noted numerous times.
If R360 starts in 2028, how long will Lomax be…"
34 minutes ago
Axel replied to Muttman's discussion Eels win in the Supreme Court
"I find it hard to believe that Matterson passed the Bellamy test.  "
35 minutes ago
Hell On Eels replied to Hell On Eels's discussion The Eels v Lomax: Timeline and Key Questions — It's Over Folks Before Main Hearing Begins
"A TKO win. As clean as you could hope for avoiding a messy bloodbath. A settlement that foreshadows the likely read-down. And just like that, the elephant has left the building."
47 minutes ago
Cʜɪᴇғy Mclovin 🐐 replied to Muttman's discussion Eels win in the Supreme Court
"Yes.  It could be that the Storm have agreed to sign Lomax for 2 years and then he can negotiate without any restrictions on his 3rd year with any club.
 "
53 minutes ago
Cʜɪᴇғy Mclovin 🐐 replied to Muttman's discussion Eels win in the Supreme Court
"Well its obvious Matterson will not play another game of nrl. He obviously wants to take this years coin and call it a day. 
Moving to Melbourne is just an excuse "
57 minutes ago
Anguillidae replied to Muttman's discussion Eels win in the Supreme Court
"That's an interesting concession. There must be something else coming our way for us to agree to that..."
1 hour ago
Johnny Suede replied to Muttman's discussion Eels win in the Supreme Court
""
1 hour ago
LB replied to Muttman's discussion Eels win in the Supreme Court
"We did agree to lower the amount of time from 2029 return to 2028.
So two years can sit out."
1 hour ago
CarloEEL2 replied to Hell On Eels's discussion The Eels v Lomax: Timeline and Key Questions — It's Over Folks Before Main Hearing Begins
"Yes very well worded "
1 hour ago
CarloEEL2 replied to Muttman's discussion Eels win in the Supreme Court
"A premiership would be nice 🤔😆or at the very least a level playing field with the other clubs of our size 🤷‍♀️🤷‍♀️🤨"
1 hour 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: 2145

 

The last of the BA Era.

 It has to be discussed dosnt it. Now that Zac can't play NRL for the next 2 years, unless the Eels are compensated, I'd like to move on and discuss the elephant in the room.By all accounts the Eels have tried just about everything in the last 2…

Read more…
1 Reply · Reply by Rabz S 4 minutes ago
Views: 54

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