Jack de Belin’s lawyers have prepared a 30-page outline to appeal the Federal Court’s decision to support the NRL’s controversial no-fault stand-down policy.
The St. George Illawarra forward’s fight for his rugby league career will continue when he returns to court on Monday in an attempt to overturn Justice Melissa Perry’s original ruling.
His lawyers claim the NRL failed to provide evidence that existing sponsors threatened to pull out because of a player being charged with a criminal offence.
They have also suggested the governing body could have decreased the amount of alcohol advertising in an attempt to address their ‘Summer of Hell’.
Removing de Belin from the NRL player marketing fund, banning him from representative games and promotional events were other alternatives listed.
“If the Respondents wanted to take action connected with curbing player behaviour and addressing cultural issues,” part of the outline began.
“They might, for example, have taken steps such as reducing the prevalence with which they encourage alcohol consumption.
“Particularly given, as (NRL chief executive) Greenberg accepted, the role of alcohol in many off-field player issues including violence against women.”
De Belin’s camp also argue the NRL failed to prove that the public would believe the game condoned violence against women if it had not banned de Belin.
They believe only about 50 of the 528 pages of emails from fans complaining about player misbehaviour even mentioned de Belin by name.
“And many of them were supportive of Mr de Belin, pointing to his presumption of innocence,” the outline read.
“The primary judge should have found that the Respondents did not establish an alienation of fans who would stop following the game.
“Or there was a risk of that occurring absent Mr de Belin being stood down, or that public opinion was in favour of standing him down.”
De Belin’s camp also questioned the inconsistencies in penalties between the automatic stand-down policy, and their discretionary decisions.
The St George Illawarra star is believed to have been refused the right to appeal, compared to Manly star Dylan Walker and Penrith utility Tyrone May.
The latter two are understood to have been stood down under Greenberg’s discretionary powers earlier this year.
However Walker was later re-instated after being found not guilty of domestic violence charges in May.
Forty Twenty
Roar Rookie
If he wins the court case on Monday he will have achieved nothing according to you ?
Nat
Roar Guru
If his lawyers have no way of proving his innocence why would they still be playing the game - are they being paid? Read the transcripts, they are trying to, in part, put blame back on the NRL for not educating players enough about how to treat women and the dangers of alcohol. Maybe the NRL should include a set of Tatts with every contract. "Don't rape" across their old fella and "don't smack women" on each hand. His lawyers would then argue the NRL didn't teach them read to a higher standard.
Warren McDonald
Guest
Adam, So why did the judge rule differently again if this was the case?
Forty Twenty
Roar Rookie
The point so many have made that you can't have a person charged with rape in the work place among woman and on that basis are pleased that JDB has been 'stood down' is laughable. The last place a so called rapist would be plying his trade is on the field with thousands of spectators and millions of viewers on TV. The other line trotted out in the debate also dodges reality. 'How would you feel if it was your daughter or sister who was the alleged victim , you would want the NRL to take action' Since when do we consult the alleged victims family to determine what action to take against a person who hasn't been to trial and has been found guilty of nothing? It's a ludicrous proposition. As if they could be expected to give an unbiased view.
Davico
Roar Pro
I get your point and agree, I think if the NRL had it's way he would not be anywhere near the club to be honest. The fact that St George, the players assoc and JDB and his lawyers kicked off so much is the only reason he is there. Even if he was barred from training as well, I don't think it would make much difference to the media attention, as JDB seems hell-bent on being able to play, and willing to seemingly throw away his financial future to do so. Having said that, if he is found not guilty I can see him trying to sue the NRL, though not sure what he could sue for as he is still getting paid and the court has already ruled against him in what is essentially a separate matter.
Gus O
Roar Rookie
I agree with your point about the self entitled bubble and the Tiger Woods syndrome. But i just haven’t seen a person charged with a crime that was unrelated to their employment is forced to take paid leave in any workplace I’ve experienced, i’ve just never seen it happen that way in a blue collar context. And i readily acknowledge the situations I have seen directly have never involved such a serious offence. Do you see my point though, he is not playing but he is still in the workplace, he has not been excluded from any other aspect of his position of employment at the club... and the bad press continues to tarnish the NRL. There seems to be no good option in this sad situation.
Forty Twenty
Roar Rookie
I wouldn't bother getting too excited about how law abiding the rest of society is compared to footy players.
Forty Twenty
Roar Rookie
Fancy looking at a case in NZ and drawing any sort of comparison , because it's not the same country with exactly the same laws? All the sponsors of the All Blacks are only sticking with them because of some mystery law? You've missed the point entirely, they are sticking with them because they aren't concerned they will lose business despite them selecting a player who admits assaulting his partner.
Davico
Roar Pro
Also, even if they want to use the situation to make a point, the NRL could just point to the NFL which has a similar stand down policy, which actually has even more discretion for the league than the NRL policy.
Davico
Roar Pro
Actually, pretty much every other workplace in the country would put someone charged with a serious crime on forced paid leave until the matter is resolved. I know of a few cases in the industry I work in alone. Footy players live in a bubble where they think that they can do what they want with no repercussions. The sooner they get that at the end of the day they are just like every other member of society who has to follow the rules the better of THEY will be!
Davico
Roar Pro
What? Apart from the fact that NZ and Australia are different countries with different laws? Good rant though
Forty Twenty
Roar Rookie
His legal people have no way of proving his innocence or lack of guilt at the moment and if he is indeed not guilty I'm not surprised at all that he would try to play the game in the mean time. By suggesting that his lawyers are trying to blame the NRL you are saying that his lawyers are admitting that he has done something wrong.
Gus O
Roar Rookie
My understanding is that he’s still in the workplace, that he’s still at the club and still training with the team.
Paul
Roar Guru
agreed Peter. I actually thought they had a better chance first time round but this appears to be clutching at straws for sure.
Succhi
Roar Rookie
To my knowledge, we have yet to hear from the victim/other party - so we don’t even know what actual evidence exists. I think of the Ben Barber case when he was thrown out of the NRL. Once I saw the video, I was glad he was gone. I’m no lawyer, but seems to me JDB’s people are clutching at straws - rather than prove his innocence, they are trying to blame the NRL for his shortcomings in common sense and education.
Peter Piper
Guest
Based on what is being reported is DeBelin's case outlined above then I would have thought that this would be thrown out. There is nothing here that suggests that the judge got it wrong.
Forty Twenty
Roar Rookie
It's a line which has been repeated many times. Even Scott Penn said it which is bizarre because he was owner when it was found to be completely false in the Brett Stewarts case. An article by Mary on the Roar said something similar. Police don't charge someone unless they have very good evidence is another line. Where is all this good evidence in Stewarts case and all the others who were not guilty? It wasn't there.
Peter Piper
Guest
‘Because he was charged it means he must have done something’ is completely false. I don't think anyone is claiming anything different and in fact this will be the reason why DeBelin is still getting paid by the Dragons.
Peter Piper
Guest
True, and this is where I expected the argument to come from. For whatever reason, DeBelins lawyers don't seem to want to go down this route. Maybe there has been some ruling behind closed doors that we don't know about. As it stands, I think the only thing DeBelin can look forward too is paying more costs.
Forty Twenty
Roar Rookie
I read a post on my teams fan forum on this issue and a poster who seems to be involved in court cases and has a lot more knowledge on court proceedings than most of us it seems, claimed that it was a ludicrous proposition that you could have a person like JDB in the work place. Completely unworkable to have someone charged with raping a woman in the workplace along side other woman he said. I'm amazed how much of this type of nonsense goes unchallenged. JDB is still employed by Saints and around woman I am sure. Brett Stewart was the same and in fact had huge support from woman who knew him. We already knows what happens when charged players are allowed to play on because it's happened before.