Stewart’s acquittal also a big win for football

Phil says:

07:32am | 30/09/10

Tony. The point is that Stewart has had his reputation smashed around on the back of rubbish from this family and also the Prosecutors. The Crown’s Prosecutor has let down everyone in this particular case. They should never have let this go through court as there simply was no factual evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Stewart had committed the accused crime.

How would you feel if you were put in the predicament of Stewart, unwavering in professing your innocence, called a pretty boy, and presumed guilty because “there must be some evidence for him to go to trial.”

Let’s be very clear - Stewart is the victim in this case.

Dr. Opkick says:

08:26am | 30/09/10

Phil, he has been judged by 12 good men and true and is therefore NOT GUILTY. Move on!

Andew says:

10:17am | 30/09/10

Tony. So your saying that because he is a ‘‘prietty boy’’ and has money he must be guilty. And how do you know there was any damage to the genitals, never has it come out that this was the case, even so Im prietty sure its possible to do to herself what stewart was accused of doing.

Paul says:

06:42pm | 30/09/10

Innocent until proven guilty Tony, and he was proven innocent, so trumpet away punchies.  And no I’m not a league fan.

Sheedy's Left Foot says:

01:01pm | 30/09/10

Yes I connect with what the author is saying here. As a Queenslander I have never watched a full game of Australian Football in my life, and the last time I watched more than 10 minutes would have been over a decade ago. Yet I know the names of many Australian Football players because of their off field problems. Even all the way up here, the bad image/bad pr has spread.

But what the author says is true – the principles of justice need to be upheld on an individual case by case basis. Many of us want to see very harsh examples made of league players in the hopes it will cause some deterrence and change in what is obviously a very dark and very rotten sporting culture. But the criminal justice system’s integrity is more important than cleaning up league. It must still be a case judged on the individual circumstances.

Sadly though, it seems pretty clear that Australian Football will continue to cough up drug addicts, beating of team mates, attacks on police and the use of public places as toilets several times a season unless something changes. I (maybe I’m too naïve) tend to believe the club CEOs and Mr. Demetriou are genuine about working hard to change league. But you can lead a horse to water, you can’t make it drink. Despite all the education you can give players (and I believe it should still continue) you can’t force a player to take it in. I suspect it may need a few years of clearing out the corrupt players through retirement, and clubs replacing them with courageous and dignified young players before we see some real change to the sports image. Until we can have a season with no felonies committed by players -the courts must deal with the allegations against players as they will with any other member of society.

Not just League old boy. Unfortunately every code has its fair share of morons.

hot tub poltical machine says:

04:06pm | 30/09/10

The issues raised in this article matter more than code wars SLF

Tim says:

12:58pm | 01/10/10

Exactly Hot Tub,
so why did you try to bring them up then?

iansand says:

06:27pm | 30/09/10

I have been involved in a few sexual assault cases.  All but one acquittals.

Two stick in my mind for the destruction they caused to families.  In one a step father of the complainant was the defendant.  In the other it was a grandfather.  In both cases bail conditions prevented any contact with the complainant which necessarily destroyed contact with any other family member.  Other family member in the first case included the man’s wife.  In the second it was his only daughter.

In the first case there were allegations of multiple penile and digital penetrations.  The Crown’s own medical evidence said that this was extremely unlikely.  In the second the complaint was based on what a person 2 rows back in a theatre claimed to see.  The victims were 4 and 6.  The busybody would be hard pressed to see the top of the girls’ heads, let alone what she claimed to see.

In any rational system neither of these charges would have proceeded.  The families were so traumatised that I doubt normal relations could ever be restored.