Innocent until proven guilty is for courts only, as I said.

Assumptions about people are made all the time every day, every hour, without proof beyond reasonable doubt. No one stops and calls for evidence, cross-examination and closing arguments before forming an opinion about others. A process is followed in court, and that is why someone is innocent until proven guilty (in Australia, anyway).

In civil cases, the burden of proof is only the balance of probabilities (50/50 in reality), which means believing one person’s story over another’s.

I’m not making assumptions about Cooper’s character and I have no idea what happened. But he can be censured or sacked for putting himself in a certain situation, even is no conviction is recorded – think – Brett Stewart.

John – specifically – imagine hypothetically that the person making accusations against swimming coach Terry Buck has an agenda, is unbalanced and has made it all up. Terry Buck’s name is mud, and he may have done nothing at all wrong. Still, he (or his memory) is treated differently since these allegations.

Tiger was found guilty in the court of public opinion well before he confessed, and this was based on the say-so of a cocktail waitress. Where were the cross-examinations, closing arguments and study of law in that case?

You’re not serious, James, are you? The opposite should be true. You are dealing with people’s reputations and when you take away everything else, that’s all a person is left with. I would tread very cautiously about making any assumptions about someone’s character, until the facts are known, or put into the public domain in the proper legal context at the very least – that’s what we’re all entitled to. And if the court then makes a ruling that proves the person innocent/not guilty, that’s where it should end.

Where the devil did you drag something about race from, Cotton McKnight, or are you on shift for the Determined to Be Offended Crew? Who is being “vilified”?

I see that the responses clearly point out “dark shark” is a known nickname for Lot$a Tuqiri and, reading back, that is exactly who was being referred to.

You pulled the wrong rein on this assertion, mate. And still you trot out a reference to racism and still you “infer” something other than the bleeding obvious, even after the bleeding obvious is explained. Grow up.

- The dark shark is Lote’s nickname.
- My comment to him being ‘terrific in a burglary’ was a reference to his league background.
- Lote isn’t that quick,

You really should think before you type.

You do realise that is Lote’s nickname?

Indeed, contracts can still be torn up where no conviction is recorded.

And my point is, that the Roar is one of the few web-site forums that is generally fair minded and even, certainly passionate and strong viewpoints are here and welcome, but this has been one long thread based on the presumed guilt of one person

It is all so easy to join in and pre judge, slander and vilify just the sake of the peer group or a bad joke at the expense of a minority, Humour is fine, but there is much more intelligent was of making jokes, and throwing in a racist joke is bad taste and just plain lazy.

Call me precious if you like, PastHisBest, but I was taught that if you do nothing around racism, you are part of the problem. If I misunderstood you post, enlighten me.

And by the way dark shark was Lote’s nickname from his Waratahs days, one I believe he liked.

Get over yourself precious.

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.

I tell you what Quade Cooper’s lawyer’s job has just been made very easy. With all this presumption of guilt and theories and speculation being thrown around, any jury will already be prejudiced and it would be throw out of court before it can begin.

Hey PastHisBest, nice black joke to boot, throw in a bit of racism and lets form a lynch mob.

But CraigB, back to you question. No I cannot explain how this may have happened, and nor can you. At the moment he has been charged with breaking the law, he is not yet guilty of breaking the law, and it is not up to you to make a judgment, unless you are the judge.

By all means comment on his rugby ability and prowess, as that is what this website is about.

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”?

Seems like the Reds cant pull a trick at the moment can they?

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.

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.