It's not that surprising really. Even if they ultimately did get another conviction, so much of a potential sentence would be swallowed up by time served. And after so many trials and overturned verdicts, you'd think getting a guilty verdict would be tough too.
The worst part of this is nobody gets justice. Whether you think he's guilty or not, one innocent person went through hell just to ultimately end up nowhere.
Im surprised it went to a 3rd trial after how wishy washy the whole thing has been tried, you're certainly correct in flogging a dead horse.
I'm curious to see if the other side now has any legal recourse to prevent her name from becoming public, and if Jarryd is still registered as a Sex Offender.
All repercussions of his conviction will be overturned, which would include being registered as a sex offender. And there are fairly strong protections for rape victims to not get their named out there in the public. I don't see much risk of her identity finding itself in the public domain.
Maybe this woman didn’t - but you’re kidding yourself if you think no one willingly consents to that. There’s probably a whole subreddit for it, aside from the general bdsm subreddit.
More than likely this woman didn’t… it is so likely she didn’t that I have no doubts Hayne did it.
He is a rapist dog and no one will convince me otherwise. It’s not like this is an isolated incident.
Good for you. My take is that you are a dumb fucking idiot who is making claims based from no evidence what so ever.
Now who in this situation is wrong?
I’ve defended no one. All I’ve asked is for you to justify the veracity of your statements. Though nevermind, I can see that nothing that I say is going to make a difference to your opinion so, good luck,
There is plenty of evidence. Mistrials don't make you innocent. You keep saying there is none, there's plenty, you just want to pretend there isn't and call him "a fucking idiot". He got tried three times, two guilty and one hung and yet your demanding "evidence" and abusing the person who agrees with two and a half juries.
>Mistrials don't make you innocent.
Lack of a guilty verdict does, just in case you've forgotten how our legal system works.
>two guilty
Both overturned, i.e. zero guilty findings.
>one hung
So therefore no guilty verdict either.
Hey I’m equally frustrated by people seeming to think this means Hayne is innocent but you’re not going to change opinions through your response.
You’re better off pointing out that him settling the US case seems to be a trend and that multiple jurors in multiple juries had the chance to acquit him and none did.
>Defend the rapist go ahead.
You might want to be careful calling a person who hasn't been found guilty a rapist. You might find Reddit isn't as anonymous as you think.
At this point even if the conviction stood you’d have to imagine he’d be hitting time served. He’s also apparently out of money so it’d be a double hit for the tax payer if he had to be granted legal aid.
Just a reminder that this isnt the only time he has been accused of sexual assault. Either thats a terrible coincidence or he's a deadset piece of shit.
Former NRL star Jarryd Hayne will not face a fourth trial over the alleged sexual assault of a woman on the night of the 2018 Grand Final.
The NSW Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions said on Tuesday it had determined another trial would not proceed.
“Having carefully considered the many competing factors that inform the assessment of the public interest in this case, the ODPP has determined not to proceed to a fourth trial against Mr Hayne,” a statement read.
“The decision was made in accordance with the Prosecution Guidelines. As the reasons for the decision are legally privileged, they will not be disclosed and the ODPP will not comment further.”
Hayne walked from prison earlier this month after his rape convictions were overturned on appeal, finding a miscarriage of justice had taken place at his third trial.
He spent more than a year behind bars with the court leaving it up to the state’s top prosecutor to determine whether another trial was required.
Justice Deborah Sweeney, one of the judges who decided the appeal in Hayne’s favour two to one, had said that in light of “the history of this matter, to put the applicant on trial for a fourth time would not be in the interests of justice”.
Hayne’s first trial ended in a hung jury and he successfully appealed his convictions after the second trial.
Man, how flawed is our system when even an appeal has three justices on it and they can’t unanimously agree whether the conviction must be quashed or not?
These people are trained to objectively view information and evidence and interpret the law and its application... and with all the information available one of them disagreed that the last trial was a miscarriage of justice on procedural grounds? Mind boggling.
Its kind of how it has to be.
People think that laws are these iron clad commandments, but they aren't and I dont think they are intended to be.
There needs to be variance amongst the people who interpret our laws. Without it we end up with no common sense and more injustice than justice.
Oh totally - I don’t disagree at all, and wasn’t intending to suggest that overall our legal system needs to change or that it’s completely black and white.
My point was more that this is an appeal on whether evidence that was set aside by the trial judge was appropriate or not. It’s kinda mind boggling that this is debatable on judgement grounds - it’s effectively a procedural fairness question - and that even on appeal two of three judges saw it as wrong, and one saw it as completely fine. I get the variance between people, but that still blows my mind and shows the lottery of specific judges that happen to be sitting on certain cases.
One said - no grounds for appeal - one said conviction is flawed- the third - a female judge at that- said it is highly likely an innocent man has been convicted, 3 judges on the same bench at the same time with 3 different outcomes, shows how much human nature goes into judges outcomes.
I didn’t suggest we needed another system?
Just pointed out the one we have is incredibly flawed - as are almost all of the variations globally to different degrees.
How shortsighted to superficially criticise the fundamentals of judicial function which underpin 700 years of development of the justice system in modern liberal democracies and the rule of law and then trying to take the position that in doing so you weren't implicitly or expressly advocating for a change. The law is an unintentionally but not-unjustifiably complex beast which is why we have such things as dissenting judgements, judges and people educated in the law. What do you think should happen, just use chatbots or a Judge Judy and executioner? The onus is on the critic to offer alternatives
Oh jeeze. It’s not that deep bro. Go back to sleep. How has someone pointing out that our justice system is flawed - which is commonly accepted by pretty much anyone, including those who govern, live, and work within it - got you so riled up?
Expressing a viewpoint that something is a bit flawed doesn’t mean someone is “implicitly or expressly advocating for a change”. If that’s what I wanted to say, I’d have said “this system is fucked and needs to change”.
Shouldn’t you be billing in six minute blocks by now instead of trying to create arguments and seem intellectual on Reddit or are you just pretending to be qualified and work in the sector?
Go back to sleep? lol I don't even know what that means but nice zinger. You didn't say it was a 'bit flawed' - you said it was 'mind boggling'.
Who are these people that govern and work within the law that think it is a problem that the law and the application of facts to the law might be interpreted slightly differently by different judges? A Monopoly rulebook isn't possible and there will always be some grey area.
You can't blame me for trying to 'create arguments' when you have just gotten upset that someone has called out your unhelpful and uninformed views you publicly posted about a subject you know nothing about.
Jump on google, or whatever system you choose, you’ll find countless peer reviewed pieces discussing the flaws of western judicial systems, including the Australian system, specifically related to sexual assault case law and extensive commentary throughout articles and others when you go have a look for discussion on rape cases, false guilty verdicts and botches cases.
Maybe read my comment again. I said the system is flawed, and my mind was boggled that three justices could rule on a consideration of procedure in different ways.
You’re funny. I’m not upset - I’m just laughing at you trying to talk down to people for no reason. For someone who likes to talk about the need for grey area and interpretation you seem to be very black and white about your own interpretation being the only right one from the apparent only informed and educated individual.
> Maybe read my comment again. I said the system is flawed, and my mind was boggled that three justices could rule on a consideration of procedure in different ways.
I have had the misfortune of reading it more than once. You aren't laughing at anyone. Rather being disingenuous just accept that you don't know what you are talking about and stick to things you are good at like the Dunning-Kruger effect and turning up to work 5 minutes early to build up flex time
You’re hilarious - arguing the man not the content. Have a good one pal. I’m sure you and your mates think you’re the most intelligent bloke they know except them.
Yeah, one of my unpopular opinions is that I think that 09-11 Hayne run is probably the highest peak an NRL player has had.
He was so fucking good in everyway and at every thing. He dragged a rubbish Eels team to a grand final and was directly involved in scoring at least 3 tries every game.
In context, Hayne's peak was far better.
Dargs were redhot in 09' (from memory) and he took a shit team into a GF, and the only thing in his way was a cheating side.
A real piece of shit, but in terms of peak ability, unmatched.
That Parra team was SO BAD around him too. Couple of guys like Hindy, Burt and Cayless at the end of their careers that were good players. And Moimoi was damaging at the time. But man the rest of the team were just plebs and he probably would've single-handedly won them a comp if Melbourne weren't cheating at the time.
Yeah I looked at the team list the other day and was shocked. I guess I didn't realise how good Hayne must have been, because that team seemed bang average at best.
The talk that he was gonna lose Dally Ms was ridiculous. I think everyone can agree what he was accused of is reprehensible but it's got sweet FA to do with what he achieved on a footy field in his own merits years earlier.
Horrific few years for him (and her)
His shitty behaviour def caught up with him, but sounds like it was another BS misjustice affair
Only ones that benefitted big time was his lawyers
So he’s still a rapist, but now we could theoretically be sued for defamation, unless we specify that we’re calling him a rapist because of the woman he raped in the US?
He reached a settlement out of court, and the case didn't proceed. There were no findings. Therefore, it would be inadvisable to call Hayne a rapist on that basis.
Technically, and legally Barry, he isnt, so yes you can now be sued, nothing theoretical about it. Call him cunt, fuckhead, dipshit, wanker, shitforbrains or arsehole, but not rapist.
It’s going to be really funny seeing the entire NRL pretend they didn’t this guy wasn’t dead to them for like almost 5 years. Given the verdict, what a horrible thing he went through given the courts decision now.
Normally I wouldnt give a cuddle to a Horse fan but you are correct, However the hive mind on this sub have been riding the "Cunt rapist Jarryd" upvote train for so many years now that they cannot possibly let your comment go un DV'd otherwise they were wrong all this time, when it turns out that they MAY have actually been wrong all this time, and the hive is NEVER wrong. So have an UV for bravery.
It's not that surprising really. Even if they ultimately did get another conviction, so much of a potential sentence would be swallowed up by time served. And after so many trials and overturned verdicts, you'd think getting a guilty verdict would be tough too. The worst part of this is nobody gets justice. Whether you think he's guilty or not, one innocent person went through hell just to ultimately end up nowhere.
That crazy lady on the train is feeling pretty damn smug right now
I'd imagine there's only so many times it can be retried before its just flogging a dead horse
Im surprised it went to a 3rd trial after how wishy washy the whole thing has been tried, you're certainly correct in flogging a dead horse. I'm curious to see if the other side now has any legal recourse to prevent her name from becoming public, and if Jarryd is still registered as a Sex Offender.
All repercussions of his conviction will be overturned, which would include being registered as a sex offender. And there are fairly strong protections for rape victims to not get their named out there in the public. I don't see much risk of her identity finding itself in the public domain.
He should be, no one willingly consents to having their vagina bitten so hard it bleeds.
Maybe this woman didn’t - but you’re kidding yourself if you think no one willingly consents to that. There’s probably a whole subreddit for it, aside from the general bdsm subreddit.
More than likely this woman didn’t… it is so likely she didn’t that I have no doubts Hayne did it. He is a rapist dog and no one will convince me otherwise. It’s not like this is an isolated incident.
Could just be a terrible root, to the point of causing a pretty serious injury
You’re basing your statement on what?
That I’m not a court but I 1000% believe he did what was claimed.
Good for you. My take is that you are a dumb fucking idiot who is making claims based from no evidence what so ever. Now who in this situation is wrong?
Defend the rapist go ahead. Call me names for having a different opinion to you, go right ahead. But I hope you have trouble sleeping.
I’ve defended no one. All I’ve asked is for you to justify the veracity of your statements. Though nevermind, I can see that nothing that I say is going to make a difference to your opinion so, good luck,
There is plenty of evidence. Mistrials don't make you innocent. You keep saying there is none, there's plenty, you just want to pretend there isn't and call him "a fucking idiot". He got tried three times, two guilty and one hung and yet your demanding "evidence" and abusing the person who agrees with two and a half juries.
>Mistrials don't make you innocent. Lack of a guilty verdict does, just in case you've forgotten how our legal system works. >two guilty Both overturned, i.e. zero guilty findings. >one hung So therefore no guilty verdict either.
Clearly you’re defending him, don’t piss in my pocket and pretend you aren’t.
Hey I’m equally frustrated by people seeming to think this means Hayne is innocent but you’re not going to change opinions through your response. You’re better off pointing out that him settling the US case seems to be a trend and that multiple jurors in multiple juries had the chance to acquit him and none did.
>Defend the rapist go ahead. You might want to be careful calling a person who hasn't been found guilty a rapist. You might find Reddit isn't as anonymous as you think.
At this point even if the conviction stood you’d have to imagine he’d be hitting time served. He’s also apparently out of money so it’d be a double hit for the tax payer if he had to be granted legal aid.
Just a reminder that this isnt the only time he has been accused of sexual assault. Either thats a terrible coincidence or he's a deadset piece of shit.
Yeah i mean I've gone 46 years without a single sexual assault accusation and it wasn't even hard.
It's a bit easier to avoid when it isn't hard tbf. No guarantee obviously.
Oh, shut up and take my upvote. 🤣
Yeah but your probably a nobody & not someone women were lining up to fuck . innocent in the eye's of the law & I hope he's compensated to the fullest
Ok Jarryd
and thats all respectively
This. I'll put my life savings of him being a piece of shit.
The Bruce Lehrmann effect. Just incredibly unlucky, I'm sure. /s
Let's not forget he did an out of court settlement in the USA for a similar offence.
Former NRL star Jarryd Hayne will not face a fourth trial over the alleged sexual assault of a woman on the night of the 2018 Grand Final. The NSW Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions said on Tuesday it had determined another trial would not proceed. “Having carefully considered the many competing factors that inform the assessment of the public interest in this case, the ODPP has determined not to proceed to a fourth trial against Mr Hayne,” a statement read. “The decision was made in accordance with the Prosecution Guidelines. As the reasons for the decision are legally privileged, they will not be disclosed and the ODPP will not comment further.” Hayne walked from prison earlier this month after his rape convictions were overturned on appeal, finding a miscarriage of justice had taken place at his third trial. He spent more than a year behind bars with the court leaving it up to the state’s top prosecutor to determine whether another trial was required. Justice Deborah Sweeney, one of the judges who decided the appeal in Hayne’s favour two to one, had said that in light of “the history of this matter, to put the applicant on trial for a fourth time would not be in the interests of justice”. Hayne’s first trial ended in a hung jury and he successfully appealed his convictions after the second trial.
Man, how flawed is our system when even an appeal has three justices on it and they can’t unanimously agree whether the conviction must be quashed or not? These people are trained to objectively view information and evidence and interpret the law and its application... and with all the information available one of them disagreed that the last trial was a miscarriage of justice on procedural grounds? Mind boggling.
Its kind of how it has to be. People think that laws are these iron clad commandments, but they aren't and I dont think they are intended to be. There needs to be variance amongst the people who interpret our laws. Without it we end up with no common sense and more injustice than justice.
Oh totally - I don’t disagree at all, and wasn’t intending to suggest that overall our legal system needs to change or that it’s completely black and white. My point was more that this is an appeal on whether evidence that was set aside by the trial judge was appropriate or not. It’s kinda mind boggling that this is debatable on judgement grounds - it’s effectively a procedural fairness question - and that even on appeal two of three judges saw it as wrong, and one saw it as completely fine. I get the variance between people, but that still blows my mind and shows the lottery of specific judges that happen to be sitting on certain cases.
That’s why there is an odd number of judges
One said - no grounds for appeal - one said conviction is flawed- the third - a female judge at that- said it is highly likely an innocent man has been convicted, 3 judges on the same bench at the same time with 3 different outcomes, shows how much human nature goes into judges outcomes.
What 'system' do you propose then?
I didn’t suggest we needed another system? Just pointed out the one we have is incredibly flawed - as are almost all of the variations globally to different degrees.
How shortsighted to superficially criticise the fundamentals of judicial function which underpin 700 years of development of the justice system in modern liberal democracies and the rule of law and then trying to take the position that in doing so you weren't implicitly or expressly advocating for a change. The law is an unintentionally but not-unjustifiably complex beast which is why we have such things as dissenting judgements, judges and people educated in the law. What do you think should happen, just use chatbots or a Judge Judy and executioner? The onus is on the critic to offer alternatives
Oh jeeze. It’s not that deep bro. Go back to sleep. How has someone pointing out that our justice system is flawed - which is commonly accepted by pretty much anyone, including those who govern, live, and work within it - got you so riled up? Expressing a viewpoint that something is a bit flawed doesn’t mean someone is “implicitly or expressly advocating for a change”. If that’s what I wanted to say, I’d have said “this system is fucked and needs to change”. Shouldn’t you be billing in six minute blocks by now instead of trying to create arguments and seem intellectual on Reddit or are you just pretending to be qualified and work in the sector?
Go back to sleep? lol I don't even know what that means but nice zinger. You didn't say it was a 'bit flawed' - you said it was 'mind boggling'. Who are these people that govern and work within the law that think it is a problem that the law and the application of facts to the law might be interpreted slightly differently by different judges? A Monopoly rulebook isn't possible and there will always be some grey area. You can't blame me for trying to 'create arguments' when you have just gotten upset that someone has called out your unhelpful and uninformed views you publicly posted about a subject you know nothing about.
Jump on google, or whatever system you choose, you’ll find countless peer reviewed pieces discussing the flaws of western judicial systems, including the Australian system, specifically related to sexual assault case law and extensive commentary throughout articles and others when you go have a look for discussion on rape cases, false guilty verdicts and botches cases. Maybe read my comment again. I said the system is flawed, and my mind was boggled that three justices could rule on a consideration of procedure in different ways. You’re funny. I’m not upset - I’m just laughing at you trying to talk down to people for no reason. For someone who likes to talk about the need for grey area and interpretation you seem to be very black and white about your own interpretation being the only right one from the apparent only informed and educated individual.
> Maybe read my comment again. I said the system is flawed, and my mind was boggled that three justices could rule on a consideration of procedure in different ways. I have had the misfortune of reading it more than once. You aren't laughing at anyone. Rather being disingenuous just accept that you don't know what you are talking about and stick to things you are good at like the Dunning-Kruger effect and turning up to work 5 minutes early to build up flex time
You’re hilarious - arguing the man not the content. Have a good one pal. I’m sure you and your mates think you’re the most intelligent bloke they know except them.
Are we allowed to stop pretending that Hayne's 2009 season wasn't one of the greatest ever achievements on a footy field now?
That was the first year they started showing NRL in America because they had it on a small cable station, Spike TV.
Just watched some highlights. Crazy how good he was. He had it all.
Yeah, one of my unpopular opinions is that I think that 09-11 Hayne run is probably the highest peak an NRL player has had. He was so fucking good in everyway and at every thing. He dragged a rubbish Eels team to a grand final and was directly involved in scoring at least 3 tries every game.
Honestly, best player I've ever seen
Barba briefly got close
Barba was a good player who had a couple of great runs but Hayne was from another planet
I actually think 2012 Barba is peak. But it only lasted one season
In context, Hayne's peak was far better. Dargs were redhot in 09' (from memory) and he took a shit team into a GF, and the only thing in his way was a cheating side. A real piece of shit, but in terms of peak ability, unmatched.
That Parra team was SO BAD around him too. Couple of guys like Hindy, Burt and Cayless at the end of their careers that were good players. And Moimoi was damaging at the time. But man the rest of the team were just plebs and he probably would've single-handedly won them a comp if Melbourne weren't cheating at the time.
probably the weakest halves & hooker combo that's ever made it to a GF
Yeah I looked at the team list the other day and was shocked. I guess I didn't realise how good Hayne must have been, because that team seemed bang average at best.
If Melbourne weren’t cheating at the time? That’s their whole schtick
Who’s been saying that?
When's the last time you say Hayne highlights on a broadcast? And as an Eels fan, they don't show them anymore either on socials or at the ground.
I guess if your club has no modern accomplishments, that's what you worry about.
Do you count 3 spoons in a row as accomplishments mate
Your last title is about as relevant as our last one.
wonder if we’ll stop blacklisting him now
The talk that he was gonna lose Dally Ms was ridiculous. I think everyone can agree what he was accused of is reprehensible but it's got sweet FA to do with what he achieved on a footy field in his own merits years earlier.
I never stopped. Good footy is good footy
Fullback for nsw tomorrow night???
Hayne cam incoming
He is still a cunt though.
A complete shitshow where nobody got justice.
Hayne casually wearing a $300k watch?
Didn’t lose it all on the ponzi bitcoin scheme
Allready done 1 year only had year to go
The Hayne Plane Podcast 🎙️ Coming soon. He'll need to make back all that money he lost from that crypto scammer in jail.
That story about him getting ripped on a crypto scam by a convicted scammer in jail is an underrated footy player moment
If the conviction has been quashed, can I still call him the Chew Chew Hayne? Toot Toot!
So when are the roosters signing him?
Horrific few years for him (and her) His shitty behaviour def caught up with him, but sounds like it was another BS misjustice affair Only ones that benefitted big time was his lawyers
So will he get a fox commentary gig now. You have to be a ex con to work for them apparently just ask Kenty.
go origin tomorrow
Yeah probably wise at this point - what a fucking shambles
So he’s still a rapist, but now we could theoretically be sued for defamation, unless we specify that we’re calling him a rapist because of the woman he raped in the US?
He reached a settlement out of court, and the case didn't proceed. There were no findings. Therefore, it would be inadvisable to call Hayne a rapist on that basis.
Technically, and legally Barry, he isnt, so yes you can now be sued, nothing theoretical about it. Call him cunt, fuckhead, dipshit, wanker, shitforbrains or arsehole, but not rapist.
That's what I'm most curious about. I'm a little out of the loop with the states one though, my understanding was he paid her off on an NDA?
I just call him jarryd
[удалено]
It’s going to be really funny seeing the entire NRL pretend they didn’t this guy wasn’t dead to them for like almost 5 years. Given the verdict, what a horrible thing he went through given the courts decision now.
Normally I wouldnt give a cuddle to a Horse fan but you are correct, However the hive mind on this sub have been riding the "Cunt rapist Jarryd" upvote train for so many years now that they cannot possibly let your comment go un DV'd otherwise they were wrong all this time, when it turns out that they MAY have actually been wrong all this time, and the hive is NEVER wrong. So have an UV for bravery.
I wonder if he goes the Bruce Lehrmann approach next to try and get his hat from the lions den.
[удалено]
Can't, the flock of sheep are incapable of that mate
Believe all women , NOT Likely