Karmichael Hunt unavailable for Reds' selection this weekend

Geez I must be - never thought about it like that - but then the gangs decided they didn't like me so here I am in Oz. And don't need any commendations thanks.

You must be the greatest police officer in the history of law enforcement then, if only one person you arrested and charged was found not guilty, and that was a a judicial error. What are you personal details so we can recommend you for commendation?

Noo, what I am saying is the agency charging him consider they have enough prima facie evidence to charge him, I made NO imputation as to his guilt or otherwise. You make the comment you would back him - thereby accepting at face value his comment he is innocent is to be believed - without any evidence being shared or tested other than reference to his being caught up in a bigger investigation and being caught on phone taps, which are usually pretty damning. Yes there is a presumption of innocence - but as a person who worked in the area dealing with criminals daily for many years I am a cynic by nature - and usually proved right in this area. Off ALL the persons I arrested & charged over 15 years (thousands) only ONE was successful in obtaining a 'Not Guilty' verdict - and that was because of the Judges ignorance of the law relating to secondary assault - or choosing to ignore it. (A case of a criminal offence causing an indirect injury) I add the rider Aussie Police of every state - and their CCC outfits have proved they are capable of tremendous incompetence and have limited success.

jibba jabba, my point is that you are saying, if he claims innocence, that means nothing as few would admit guilt. You then go to imply that due to police having enough evidence to charge him, he is guilty (by doubting his innocence). I'm simply saying that's not how any legal system in an evolved country works. And that people should not be prejudiced due to charges (as they are not) as these are not indicative of guilt at all.

JOC would be better at Fullback with Folau on the wing rather than the other way around... Hunt was my dark horse for the fullback role until all of this surfaced... Folau, Hunt, JOC back three would be great... Speight on the bench... damage!

Criminal systems are pretty much the same in th UK, SA, Oz and NZ. The CCC is a special invention in most Oz States that has powers to investigate anything really, but should focus on public interest matters and corruption in public office. Yes, Beyond Reasonable Doubt’ is the Courts standard not the cops, but the cops wont lay a charge unless they think they can get a conviction. That's the point I was making. Theres nothing that pisses off a busy Magistrate more than the cops having a crap or badly prepared case. Certainly, conspiracy to commit an offence is a crime - and if the crime has occurred you become an accessory after the fact. If the crime hasnt occured you can be an accessory before the fact. At this point I'm going to retire from this conversation and have a beer!

I was thinking more along the lines that the charges being chucked in because it was argued to be a personal use amount wouldn't necessarily solve his problem...

How does the system work over there - do the cops lay the charges in high profile criminal matters (whether because of the charge such as murder or drug trafficking or the celebrity status of the alleged offender) or do you have a DPP (Department of Public Prosecutions) - just occurred to me the CCC are laying the charges arent they so nothing to do with the cops unless they are involved in the mechanics of the investigation. and the term people have missed is 'prima facie' - whoever is laying the charges needs sufficient evidence to satisfy. Proving 'Beyond Reasonable Doubt' is the Courts standard not the cops. And Lano they can also consider 'conspiracy' one of my favourites...conspiring with someone else to commit an offence.. You dont even have to commit the subject offence.

TWAS quite right. AndyS - a charge sheet will always include lower order offences, so if the main charge fails, then the prosecutor can succeed on the lower one, assuming supported by the evidence. Think Murder vs Homocide - if you cant prove intent, then you get the accused on negligence. Here, if they cant prove "dealing or intent to supply" they'll get him on posession. Either way, it'll all be over in the same hearing.

Depends what they charge him with too. Even if they find him not guilty of supplying, wouldn't mean his problems would necessarily be over. It would just about need to be a case of mistaken identity or evidence....

Lano, Regardless, a charge only means the investigators think you've done it. It doesn't make you any more or less guilty.

there's plenty of ball fumbling here.....the cops charge you only if they think they have a probability of a conviction. The standard of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt". A jury is deemed to hold society's view as to what is reasonable. TWAS has the ball in hand here! The Watch Commander at the station, and for more serious offences, the Attorney general will review the evidence and decide whether to charge or not. A sumons or notice to appear in court sets out the basic charge and followed by that there are plenty of processes to go through about swapping evidence and notice of witnesses etc. It is absolutely true that a jury is a lottery. in high profile cases, a conviction or acquital is can be based on a pre-existing affection or prejudice, despite what the evidence states. Far from not 'fessing up, in my experience 90% of drug charges are dealt with prior to court appearances, but not for Hunt alas. He's too big a prize.

Being charged is evidence that police THINK they have enough evidence. There's a reason why the law does not prejudice against people that have previously been charged with a crime - to protect the innocent. And yes mike of course the courts don't "find" a person innocent. They are already deemed innocent on the basis they are "innocent until proven guilty".

If we are going to define it that way, then we need to be honest about the presence of human error at all points, not assume that police don't make mistakes but judges or juries do. So it could fairly be put this way: "being charged is a lottery and what happens afterwards is a lottery". Or this way: "being charged is evidence the cops have - in their view - sufficient evidence to charge him, and being convicted is evidence the judge or jury agree that the evidence was sufficient to prove guilt." Courts in Australia can't find a person innocent. There is either a finding of guilty or a finding of not guilty. Note that the latter doesn't mean the accused is innocent or even a nice person, nor does it mean that they might not be guilty of lots of other things. Perhaps they didn't pull the trigger but it doesn't mean they didn't cheat on their taxes or exceed the speed limit and if the coppers can catch them on those things, they can bring charges. Your point about the contract is a fair one - if he was required to declare something and didn't, then he could have a contractual issue. But its speculation unless we know what was in the contract.

Being charged is evidence the cops have - in their view - sufficient evidence to charge him; what happens after that is up to the judiciary..and because of that - is often a lottery

Being charged is also evidence of nothing. Until proven guilty, in our society he is innocent in the eyes of the law. That's all that matters in regards to his supposed guilt. Of course the negative public and image issues may matter to the Reds and ARU.

Very few criminals charged with dealing drugs up front will say 'fair cop guv"! so pleading innocence is evidence of nothing.. different story if the Court 'finds' him innocent... Will be interesting to see the evidence .. for example if the Contract terms include a questions "Have you used recreational drugs?" and he answered "No" then pleads in his defence to the supplying charge x 4, "It was for my own use" (assuming some evidence of possession, has to be some substance or evidence for a charge one would expect) then he could be construed to have lied in his Contract eh?

So the Tahs can keep a misogynist txt messanger in their ranks, but its fine cause he didn't send the second message?

Potentially yes there would be. I doubt it would specify offenses though. My point is a charge is not indication of guilt, which is why I would back him if he plead innocent. Regardless of what the contract terms were.

Would there be any clauses in his ARU/QLD contract relating to 'charges, pending charges and recreational drug' use? Does anyone have a generic copy of a contract for perusal?