https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-05-10/ ... /100111886
https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/jac ... 57nm6.html
https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/subsc ... de=premium
So in 2018, NRL player (NRL-or Rugby League being a prestigious, world-class sport). In 2918, NRL Player Jack De Belin and his friend Callan Sinclair were accused of raping a then 19 year old woman Both men pleaded not-guilty and insisted that the sexual threesome was consensual. Today, finally, after years, the second jury found De Belin and Sinclair not guilty of one of the 6 charges, and it was the second hung jury, meaning that they were found neither innocent nor guilty. The DPP (Department of Public Prosecutions) will rule about whether or not there will be a third jury. Normally, an individual court case wouldn't warrant its own thread, however given how high profile De Belin is, one of Australia's elite sportsmen, I'm not sure if it would be worth a thread, however, the real nuanced part of this is the NRL's no-fault stand-down. I'll get into what that is in a moment, but first, for the record, I must state that the alleged victim's father was a police officer, and one of the police officers at his station admitted to lying to the court. I won't comment too much on the case, as it's still potentially a matter for the courts, however, what I really want to discuss is the no-fault stand-down
Pretty much as soon as De Belin was accused of such crimes, the National Rugby League (NRL) introduced a new "no fault stand down rule, meaning that any player who is accused of any serious crime will automatically be stood down until they are found innocent in a court of law. At the time, many suspected was created specifically to apply to De Belin, especially considering how around the same Matt Lodge was found guilty of bashing the shit out of a family in the USA, and he was still allowed to play, even to this day (https://www.smh.com.au/sport/nrl/infuri ... 4z2fh.html), and many people continue to criticise the rule of the no fault stand down, and many people, to this day, continue to believe that it is selectively applied by the NRL.
It should also be noted that a couple of weeks ago, NRL player Jarryd Hayne was found guilty of rape, and some of his supporters showed up to the court case and spat on his victim, but this way, way, way after the original De Belin accusations
Right now, the NRL is crisis control mode and not sure whether or not to reinstate De Belin if there is no third trial, and also worried about whether or not they will get seud by De Belin for loss of income. If there is no third trial, I don't legal ground the NRL will use for not allowing him to play, besides "Well technically, he wasn't found not guilty", and I bloody hope that doesn't hold any water, because, in the eyes of the law, he's not guilty. And if they don't allow him to play with a hung jury and no third trial, I hope he sues the shit out of them. THat's just disgusting. However, even if he is allowed to play if the DPP decides not to host a third trial, then the NRL is still liable to get sued from De Belin because of the income he lost during this period. I was against the no stand down rule as soon as it was introduced (I am also aware that other employers do that, and I am against them doing that too) as I believe that everyone is innocent till proven guilty. I especially hate the double standards that apply to De Belin and Matt Lodge. De Belin wasn't found guilty but Lodge was, and not only that, but he also failed to pay court-ordered reparations. Anyways, as this is one of the hottest stories in the state of New South Wales right now, what's your take on the matter NSG?
