The first time I met Josh Reynolds was over five years ago when he was still playing for the Canterbury Bulldogs.
My place of employment was involved in a literacy program whereby the employees would write letters to students at a school based in Minto.
The program was designed to give the kids a positive role model and to encourage and promote literacy (both for the employees and the students!)
At the end of the year, my place of employment would host a party where the students would come in to meet their buddies and we would celebrate. There was always a guest speaker, usually a sporting personality, and one year it was Reynolds.
He was so impressive that day. He was kind to all the children and stayed as long as he had to, to make sure that every child got a selfie and an autograph. He was generous with his time and a real credit to his club.
I later thanked Raelene Castle, who was CEO at the time, for allowing us to spend some time with Reynolds. Raelene told me that the player she received the most compliments about away from footy was Reynolds and that he would regularly attend kids’ parties, did plenty of community work behind the scenes and was gracious with fans.
Since that event, I have had the opportunity to meet Reynolds on several other occasions and he has always been friendly and polite.
When I heard about the allegations of domestic violence levelled against Reynolds, I was shattered. It seemed completely incongruous with the image I had in my mind and the man that I had had some brief interactions with.
But of course, just because someone presents as a ‘nice guy’ in public, does not mean that the public knows what happens behind closed doors.
As a feminist and as someone who understands the prevalence of domestic violence in this country, I also want to believe women that come forward and make allegations. Domestic violence is a complicated issue and it can take great courage to come forward and report.
Additionally, we have seen countless examples of women coming forward with serious allegations and then questions are posed like ‘what was she wearing?’, ‘had she had anything to drink?’, ‘why was she out so late?’ and ‘why did she go home with him?’
Victim blaming is real and I find it staggering that people use these factors to try and excuse what is absolutely despicable behaviour and behaviour that no one ‘asks’ for.
Since those initial allegations were made, other footage has been released to the media of Reynolds speaking to his ex-partner is an angry tone and allegedly grabbing her wrist. I had several questions at the time – did Reynolds know he was being filmed, was there a potential trespass here, was the video selectively filmed?
None of these factors excuse the language used in this video or any alleged violence, but I wondered whether there was more to the story.
Neil Breen has done some additional investigation since then. Earlier this week on Nine News a story aired about Reynolds’ ex-partner alleging that she had multiple identities, had faked several pregnancies and lied about her own health and the health of her family to get money from former partners.
This piece on the news was extremely difficult to watch. We know that Reynolds and his ex-partner went public last year to announce the miscarriage of their twins. To see the anguish Reynolds was going through at that time was hard.
It seemed clear he really wanted to be a dad but also a supportive partner in a deeply distressing time. To have since learnt that these pregnancies may have been fake? I can’t imagine Reynolds’ mental state at the moment if the details in the investigation were true.
It was announced by the NRL today that Reynolds will not be subject to the no-fault stand-down policy. Todd Greenberg labelled his matter “complex” and said that Josh had been upfront and open about his situation, proactively advising the Integrity Unit of what was happening before the police investigation began.
This situation is devastating.
Serious allegations have still been levelled at Reynolds and just because my interactions with him in the past have been positive, it does not mean that he did not behave as alleged.
However, if the allegations levelled against his former partner are true, this no doubt impacts the way we perceive other potential victims that come forward and make allegations. Are we less likely to believe people in the future because of cases like this?
There are absolutely no winners in this situation.
I hope everyone involved is receiving the support that they need.
astro
Roar Rookie
Yes both men and women are capable of being abusive...But statistically, its far more likely men than women who are physically abusive. An independent review of three different DV studies in the US, showed an estimate of 2-10% of sexual assault allegations were false allegations, and 63% of sexual assaults are not reported to the police. I think this is Mary's point...accusations like the one made again Reynolds if true (and same for Heard/Depp, if true), only make it harder for women to come forward.
Gray-Hand
Roar Rookie
It certainly could affect a trial, so the quality of the investigation and the reasonableness of any decision to stand down a player is paramount. If a player was stood down, then found not guilty, he could possibly sue for damage to his reputation. But that would be seperate trial with different evidence and a lower standard of proof. Guilt in a Criminal matter needs to be proven beyond reasonable doubt, which is a pretty high bar. In a defamation case, the NRL would just have to show on the balance of probabilities that the player had committed the criminal act and they would win. Defamation can be a pain for plaintiffs because they usually end up having to effectively prove their innocence. In a criminal case, defendants usually just get to sit back and poke holes in the prosecution’s case. The blanket rule probably means that a bit less mud sticks, but there is still plenty of mud. It means that an innocent player has their reputation tarnished and their career interrupted but that a guilty player gets free money. Any system that punishes the innocent and rewards the guilty is a bad system.
The Barry
Roar Guru
Geez...it’s 12 months later and you’re still banging on about the same tired old stuff that has no relevance Players can breach the NRL code of conduct and not have broken the law. A guilty verdict in a court of law isn’t the only determining factor in whether a player should be stood down or not The NRL isn’t judging a players legal guilt, they’re trying to uphold a standard of behaviour and limit the financial and reputations risks these incidents have on the game
Gray-Hand
Roar Rookie
I’m talking in general.
soapit
Roar Guru
isi it actually termination though? Arent they still employed somehow while they're stood down, just not paid? Would a civil lawsuit be another option?
soapit
Roar Guru
thing is would standing them down because they found him guilty affect how he was viewed in and after his proper trial? If he got found not guilty in court after being stood down because the nrl found him guilty could he then sue for tarnishing his image (not to mention lost earnings)? Having a blanket rule without thought allows them to be impartial and theoretically have less mud stick. It also removes the question of whether they mucked up their own investigation
soapit
Roar Guru
Which hasn't resulted in the player being stood down?
Forty Twenty
Roar Rookie
Hopefully the Captains Challenge will fix that sort of thing up.
Gray-Hand
Roar Rookie
No special treatment for players who offend against children or elders. Presumably the NRL took the view that there were too many incidents of its players inflicting violence in women and wished to make it clear that attitudes needed to change. Do offences against women can result in a stand down. Child molestation and elder abuse haven’t ever really been an issue for NRL players, so no special action was necessary.
WarHorse
Roar Rookie
What about offences against children or the vulnerable elderly. Are they also treated the same? If not why not?
WarHorse
Roar Rookie
Allowing discretion is one thing but putting it in the hands of one person is fraught with danger and can lead to perceived bias and conflicted positions. Could past relationships between player and administrator have anything to do with this particular outcome?
Forty Twenty
Roar Rookie
G.H , you may be happy for the NRL to determine that a player is guilty before the trial but it's not what Beattie said in Feb last year '' I want to make it clear this is no fault, we're making no judgement whatsoever to any player charged with any offence'' I'm not sure why they want footage of the Scott incident if they're not going to make any judgement's on any player charged with any offence. If they do get this tape and make a judgement without hearing the other side of the story , how reliable can that judgement be anyway?
Gray-Hand
Roar Rookie
Yes. And provided they have conducted a reasonable investigation that allows them to reasonably satisfy themselves that a player is guilty of a particular offence, then They are not only justified, but morally bound to sanction the player accordingly. Same as in every day life – if I see someone commit a crime with my own eyes, I don’t have to wait a year for a court judgment to tell me that I can treat them like a criminal. If the NRL conducts an investigation and can’t reasonably satisfy itself that the player commits an offence, then it’s innocent until proven guilty and the player gets to keep playing pending the result of the Court proceedings.
Gray-Hand
Roar Rookie
Of course.
Hoy
Roar Guru
Hi Mary, I know the video came out months after, but a lot of social media posts after the video was tying his swearing at a woman to the fact he must be guilty. Somehow, on social media, his swearing at a female who allegedly broke into his house, was much worse than her alleged break in...
Mary Konstantopoulos
Expert
Hoy, Reynolds was charged with a domestic violence offence well before the video was released. The video had nothing to do with the charge. The reasoning has certainly not been 'he swore at her so he must be guilty of domestic violence'.
souvalis
Roar Rookie
Never forget the day Grub speared himself and won the penalty against Jake Turbo a few years ago..looks like he’s done it again.
Hoy
Roar Guru
Fair enough, but still a stinky situation isn't it? If you lost your job because of a false accusation?
Gray-Hand
Roar Rookie
Nah. Wouldn’t work like that. The employer would simply present the additional evidence it had accumulated to the Fair Work commission ( or other relevant tribunal or Court) and show that the decision it made was reasonable. The rules of evidence are way looser at the commission than in a criminal court, and the standard of proof is only balance of probabilities rather than beyond reasonable doubt. If the circumstances were such that the employer couldn’t prove on the balance of probabilities the employee had committed some sort of criminal act that was also a breach of their employment contract, it is unlikely the police would have ever brought charges that need to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. So the employer, provided they could show that their investigation and decision was reasonable at the time it was made, would probably be sitting pretty. In any event, unfair dismissal proceedings have to be lodged within a pretty short time after the dismissal (21 days, I think), which wouldn’t be anywhere close to enough time to conclude a contested criminal trial.
Hoy
Roar Guru
It's all horrible, but yeah, I can't work out why people think he is guilty of DV simply based on this video of him swearing at someone, even when they know the story behind it... "Like yes, she broke into his house... but he swore at her, so he must be guilty of DV..." If someone was in my house without my consent, a verbal assault is a an understandable start point surely?... DV is a HUGE issue, but this is blindly accepting that the woman can do no wrong, and the bloke accused is automatically a monster simply based on... what? It gets really muddied because I also get the overwhelming need to believe women about these situations, but an issue is that it can't be blindly believe can it?... Otherwise that overturns our whole legal system doesn't it? I can't ever work out how in a 2 person argument, he said/she said, juries find guilt beyond reasonable doubt... particularly in some instances, years after the event. This is the complexity of the issue.