Lawyers called in for Quade Cooper
By AAP, 8 Dec 2009 AAP is a Roar Pro
- Tagged:
- Quade Cooper, Rugby Union, wallabies
Lawyers for Wallabies star Quade Cooper have urged the public not to pre-judge their client after he was charged with burglary on the Gold Coast on Sunday.
Brisbane law firm Creevey Russell issued a statement on Monday saying investigations into the matter were far from complete and urged an end to speculation about the circumstances surrounding the alleged offence.
“Given that Quade has been charged and the matter is before the court, we are limited in what we can say on Quade’s behalf about the circumstances giving rise to the alleged offence,” the statement read.
“Similarly, as much as he would like to, Quade is unable to make any comments to the media about the circumstances.
“However, we can say that the investigations that need to be undertaken in this matter are far from concluded and it would be unfair for anyone to pre-judge Quade or to speculate as to what in fact happened both prior to and at the time of the alleged offence.
“Quade, like everyone else, is entitled to have the circumstances fully investigated and, if the matter progresses to that point, is entitled to a fair trial.”
The Test and Queensland centre was released from Southport watchhouse on Sunday afternoon, charged with one count of burglary of a residence in Surfers Paradise on Sunday morning.
The 21-year-old is due to appear in Southport Magistrates Court on December 11.
Reports said he had been apprehended at around 4am on Sunday after a resident found an entrance to his home damaged and Cooper allegedly removing personal property.
Cooper recently returned from a breakthrough Wallabies tour, where he played all four Tests as Berrick Barnes’ replacement at inside centre in Australia’s grand slam quest.
He was fined $10,000 by the Australian Rugby Union earlier this year after a taxi window was broken in Brisbane and was disciplined again after a food fight in Canberra.
© AAP 2012Enjoy sports? Enjoy a bargain? All Sports Online has your favourite sporting brands at up to 70% off. Online only, premium quality sporting goods and merchandise at discounted prices. Get a deal now.
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Rugby Union articles
- Will Super Rugby crowds continue their slide? (178)
- Will South African rugby force a Super 21 by 2018? (171)
- Brumbies 2012: New coach, new players, new attitude (128)
- Pocock set to be named new Force skipper (56)
- Can the ‘Tahs win the battle after losing the Waugh? (51)
- What does the future hold for the Six Nations (50)
- Wales and France the early stars of the Six Nations (48)
- Wales’ Davies banned for ‘tip tackle’ (2)
- Graham Henry’s rugby future confirmed (12)
- Barnes to lead Waratahs in first hitout
- Harris and Lucas in Reds No.10 audition (3)
- Wales show Southern Hemisphere how to play running rugby (18)
- Dan Parks and the unsolved questions of expat rugby (61)
- David Pocock: a skipper my Force teammates will fight for (21)
- Wales show Southern Hemisphere how to play running rugby (18)
- What opening matches of Six Nations taught us (16)
- Will Super Rugby crowds continue their slide? (198)
- Clinical Chiefs cost rusty Rebels in Corio (9)
- Six Nations shows rugby is a parochial game at heart (5)
- Goose’s Super Rugby up-and-comer XV for 2012 (29)
- What does the future hold for the Six Nations (50)
- Explore:
- Quade Cooper, Rugby Union, wallabies
Harry said | December 8th 2009 @ 8:35am | Report comment
He’s going with “The Hangover” defence I read in the SMH … “no memory of the night”.
Stand by for some patsy to come forward to fessing up to spiking his drink.
JC said | December 8th 2009 @ 12:12pm | Report comment
So it seems. Unless there are some fantastic circumstances surrounding this event, and if he’s going with the blind drunk excuse then I suspect there is not, I think he will be receiving a jolly good telling off from the ivory tower of the law and a contract torn in two.
Hayden said | December 8th 2009 @ 12:15pm | Report comment
Apparently there is no contract to be torn up right now. Technically he is neither in the employ of either the Reds or ARU, as he is on holiday. Cue the Brumbies to make him an offer.
Joh4Canberra said | December 8th 2009 @ 3:36pm | Report comment
There is most definitely a contract to be torn up. Cooper has a contract to play (if selected) with the Reds and the Wallabies in 2010. That’s a contract that can be torn up. So the existence of the contract to be torn up is not in doubt. And that the ARU can tear it up is also not in doubt. What is in doubt is the ability of the ARU to tear it up *without incurring legal penalties*. Can the ARU tear up it without having to pay the player damages for breach of contract?
The answer to that last question will depend on a lot of things, one of which is the effect under the contract of the player committing this kind of behaviour while on holidays in the off season. That’s going to depend on the way the contract is sructured/ worded. I doubt that anyone here has actually read Cooper’s contract so it’s impossible to say what the case is. But I’d be surprised if the ARU’s lawyers hadn’t covered this possibility in drafting the contract.
ThelmaWrites said | December 8th 2009 @ 5:16pm | Report comment
J4C
Shouldn’t it be trespass instead of burglary? Or course I surmise.
Joh4Canberra said | December 9th 2009 @ 7:49am | Report comment
Thelma,
I’m not exactly sure what your point is. Are you saying that the press was wrong to report that he was charged with the offence of “burglary” and that instead the press should have said that he was alleged to have committed a “trespass”?
Trespass is a wrong in *civil* law but Cooper has been charged with the *criminal* offence of “burglary” under the Queensland Criminal Code.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol_act/cc189994/
The offence of “burglary” is found in section 419 of the Queensland Criminal Code which presumably is the offence Cooper has been charged with. If you click on the above link to the legislation you can read for yourself what the legal definition of “burglary” is under the criminal law of Queensland (although as well as section 419 you may also want to read sections 418, 421 and 425). Basically the legal definition of burglary in Queensland is breaking and/or entering the dwelling of another with the intent to commit an indictable offence (eg stealing). It should be no surprise that this legal definition of “burglary” largely reflects the everyday understanding of “burglary”.
lex said | December 9th 2009 @ 11:07am | Report comment
Agree. Trespass is a civil offence, not a crime. The old sign “Trespassers will be prosecuted” is wrong – trespassers may be sued , but only crimes can be prosecuted.
ThelmaWrites said | December 9th 2009 @ 5:09pm | Report comment
J4C and lex:
Thanks for the comments. Actually I’m not a lawyer (my formal training is in the sciences). But as a trainee in a major bank, our lawyer (who was also a friend) pointed out that it would save everyone a lot of time if we framed our questions correctly. So over the years, I’ve had to acquaint myself with the law. (I’ve just bought a book on Equity and Trusts for $3 from a St Vinnies bin. Best book on the subject – for me at least!)
The reference to “trespass” was meant to focus us on the elements of the alleged “burglary”. So he “entered”. What was his intent? If there was no stealth, is it “stealing”?
Joh4Canberra said | December 10th 2009 @ 3:53am | Report comment
Thelma, as a lawyer I can can say a few things by way of explanation but am mindful of the fact that this is a sports blog and not a law class. So I don’t want to take up space on a matter others may feel is way off topic.
I should of course start off by saying that we don’t actually know the facts yet and Cooper is innocent until proven guilty (or he admits his guilt by pleading guilty in court). At the moment all we have are unsubstantiated allegations and it’s important to realise that these cannot be treated as the “facts” of what actually happened on the night in question. If the matter goes to trial there will be a legal process where various allegations and counter-allegations of fact can be sifted and weighed and the court will come to a view on the facts. And once that is the case we then have to apply the law to the facts to see if the facts as proven amount to the crime of “burglary” or not.
The prosecution therefore is faced with two tasks: (1) to prove to the court beyond reasonable doubt that Cooper engaged in a particular course of conduct and (2) to convince the court that such conduct amounts to the crime of “burglary” under s 419 of the Queensland Criminal Code. (1) is an an argument about the *facts*: What did Cooper do? Or more precisely, what is he proved beyond reasonable doubt to have done?. (2) is an argument about the *law*: Does what Cooper did (or again more precisely what he is proved beyond reasonable doubt to have done) amount to the crime of “burglary” as defined by law? If he pleads not guilty Cooper can deny (1) or (2) or both.
Under s 419 of the Queensland Criminal Code burglary is defined as (1) entering (2) the dwelling (3) of another (4) with the intent to commit an indictable offence. These four things are known as the “elements” of the offence of burglary and the prosecution has to prove all four of these beyond reasonable doubt in order to make the charge of burglary stick. If one or more of these elements is lacking then Cooper is not guilty of the offence of burglary and will be acquitted by the court on any count thereof (although he may be guilty of some other crime or liable at civil law for the tort of trespass etc but that fact is irrelevant in answering a charge of burglary.)
So for example if you have elements (1), (2), and (3) but not (4) there is no offence of burglary. If you walk uninvited into someone else’s house for no particular reason, stand there and then leave then you would not be guilty of the offence of “burglary” (although you may be guilty of another offence). Element (4) is missing here.
And if you have elements (1), (2), and (4) but not (3) there is no offence of burglary. If you enter your own home with the intent of stealing your mother’s (i.e. not your own) jewels which happen to be kept at your house for safekeeping you would not be guilty of the offence of “burglary”. Element (3) is missing here.
Get the picture? All four elements need to be there for guilt to be established. If one or more is missing then the accused is not guilty.
As you have intimated, proving (1), (2), and (3) — objective facts — is fairly uncontroversial (either there is good evidence that the accused did these three things or there is not) and the sticking point is proving element no. (4), i.e. the *intent* of the accused in entering the dwelling of another. So assuming there is evidence to suggest Cooper entered the dwelling of another (and again I stress that the fact of that matter is yet to be proved), the all important question is WHY he entered. That’s going to come down to the evidence before the court. What evidence is relevant here? Two lines of evidence really: (1) what Cooper says in police interviews and in open court can and will be taken as evidence about his intent in entering the house; (2) any conduct he engaged in after entering the house (such as rummaging through the occupiers’ belongings or walking off with some of the occupiers’ property) can and will also be used as evidence of his intent to enter.
If (as has been reported) there are witnesses (the occupiers?) claiming that they saw him rummage through their belongings then that would be strong evidence that his intent to enter was for the purpose of stealing (which would satisfy element no. 4). But it is not certain of course. There are (in theory at least) other possible explanations besides an intent to steal as to why someone would enter another’s house and rummage through the occupier’s belongings. As a scientist you should appreciate the difference between deductive and inductive arguments. Here we are very much dealing with an inductive argument. We are working backwards from effect to cause. We have the observed fact of the accused rummaging through the owner’s belongings; so what caused it? Was it an intent to steal? Or was it something else? We are not dealing with the certainties of deductive logic here so (just like in science) there is room for arguments about how to interpret the available evidence.
Does the fact of the accused rummaging through the occupiers’ belongings prove “beyond reasonable doubt” that he had the intent of committing an indictable offence (eg stealing)? Generally speaking that would be the most plausible explanation, but when it comes to inductive arguments like this what is “generally speaking the most plausible explanation” is NOT always actually true in a given case. The accused might have had a different reason for rummaging through the occupier’s belongings. It would be open for the accused to offer a different explanation in an effort to convince the court that the fact of his rummaging &c (if proved of course) does not go to prove that he entered the house with the intent of stealing.
Of course there are further pieces to the puzzle. There are also reports that Cooper was found with the property of the occupiers on him. If this is true then that would also be strong evidence of the fact that he entered the house with an intent to steal. Again there are (theoretically at least) other possible explanations for the fact of being found in the possession of the occupiers’ property and it is open to Cooper to try to argue that the court should not conclude from this that he entered the house with intent to steal. But in practice that would be a big ask. Not impossible but an uphill battle. A second piece to the puzzle is the possibility of an accomplice and how that effects what Cooper did and intended. A third piece to the puzzle is what state he was in at the time. Reports indicate that he is claiming that he cannot remember large portions of the night on question. He may have been intoxicated. This will obviously raise questions about whether he intended to commit an indictable offence when he entered (element number 4). But it will also raise questions about what control he had over his faculties more generally. There is a general requirement in the criminal law for both “actus reus” (Latin for “guilty act”) and “mens rea” (Latin for “guilty mind”). The general rule is that as well as a physical component to the crime there is also a mental component so that the criminal law does not apply to a person lacking the requisite element of mental fault even if he actually commits all the (physical) elements of the crime. Generally speaking, someone not in control of his faculties is not guilty of a criminal offence. I don’t want to go into detail explaining the requirement for mens rea here so I suggest you look these terms up in an encyclopaedia or law dictionary or ask a lawyer you know to explain these terms to you. But if someone was drunk at the time it raises questions about whether he had the requisite “mens rea”. Now in actual fact, even if drunk you usually still will be considered to have the requisite mens rea (i.e. the mental component of the crime) but that is not universally the case. It can get tricky and you can expect the lawyers to be arguing over points like this.
Hope this helps clarify some of the matters for you. But like I said we don’t know the facts yet. This is really just an explanation of how the law works in a few different possible factual scenarios. I make no claims to know what Cooper did or didn’t do on the night in question.
ThelmaWrites said | December 10th 2009 @ 11:48am | Report comment
Wow, a classic! I don’t deserve such an excellent reply. When I threw in the “trespass” post, I was just scratching around for something in defense of Quade. But I’m not totally surprised. I had followed your argumentations whether Kearney on Elsom was a “charge”, a “push”, etc.Very, very grateful.
Joh4Canberra said | December 11th 2009 @ 11:17am | Report comment
No worries. I’m glad you appreciated the answer. You’re actually thinking like a good defence lawyer there anyway
One way of defending someone on a charge of burglary would be to argue that yes, he entered the house of another i.e trespassed) but did not have the requisite “intent to commit an indictable offence” in which case he would be not guilty of the offence of burglary.
Dingbat said | December 8th 2009 @ 12:27pm | Report comment
i thought he may be a klepto…turns out, he’s just another drunk aussie!!
jacko said | December 8th 2009 @ 12:50pm | Report comment
maybe a drunk kiwi searching for some scroggin… or perhaps he was trying to get a free pair of jandals or a free chillybun… *lol*
Ai Rui Sheng said | December 9th 2009 @ 12:41am | Report comment
Is he a Criminal or a Shakey Islander? Come on fess!!
Sin-ick said | December 11th 2009 @ 10:46am | Report comment
Wasn’t he born in NZ??
Ai Rui Sheng said | December 13th 2009 @ 5:33pm | Report comment
If plays for the mercenary Dingoes and it looks like a duck (criminal) …………..
Cotton McKnight said | December 8th 2009 @ 12:43pm | Report comment
Gee, you guys sure know how to make up you mind.
So much for the presumption of innocence.
Although Dingbat, you were at least a bit funny.
CraigB said | December 8th 2009 @ 4:55pm | Report comment
Cotton – My understanding of the situation is thus. He was allegedly caught red handed going through the belongings of the home owner. While it is not determined he broke the door, he certainly was invited in. He was then possibly restrained a short time later with laptops…
Can you explain how this may have happened WITHOUT breaking the law…..
mcxd said | December 8th 2009 @ 10:27pm | Report comment
CraigB, are you saying he WAS invited in ? puts a bit of a different spin on it. ..i suppose its all speculation right now anyway.
CraigB said | December 9th 2009 @ 6:39am | Report comment
yeah it does, however that is a MAJOR typo on my behalf. apologies, I meant was not invited in. I am as much for innocent until proven otherwsie, but I cannot see from what we know, how he intends to defend himself….
Joh4Canberra said | December 9th 2009 @ 8:13am | Report comment
If you’re going to discuss the technicalities of what constitutes a “burglary” you may actually want to read what the Queensland Criminal Code (specifically section 419) has to say on this. That’s the relevant law here.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol_act/cc189994/
You don’t actually have to “break” to commit a burglary under the Queensland Criminal Code. Burglary is defined as *entering* the dwelling of another with intent to commit an indictable offence (eg stealing). What breaking does is up the maximum penalty from 14 years to life.
So even if the front door was left wide open and you walk in with the intention of taking something you’ve committed the offence of “burglary” under s 419 of the Queensland Criminal Code.
reds fan said | December 9th 2009 @ 8:41am | Report comment
From the few “facts” that have been reported I haven’t read that he was caught with any property.
My understanding is that 1. There was an accomplice who has not been identified or caught 2. there was forced entry, but no mention of who did the forcing (however as stated above that doesn’t rule out burglary) 3. he was seen in the house rummaging 4. there are two laptops missing 5. he was found in the backyard and possibly cap spray was used to subdue him.
Unless I’ve missed an article, I think these are the facts as they stand. There is alot of detail and context missing.
Despite that I would be surprised to see him running out for the first Reds match of the season.
stillmissit said | December 9th 2009 @ 10:16am | Report comment
Looks like we have another drop kick on our books. I really thought he was improving as a player and I was looking forward to seeing what he could do for Qld next season. What is it with these boys, it all feels very other worldly to me, must be getting old.
Seems like the Reds cant pull a trick at the moment can they?
Dingbat said | December 9th 2009 @ 10:30am | Report comment
did he act alone or was Lote with him?