Curtis Scott police assault charges dropped after court rules arrest 'unlawful'

[Botman]

You wont get an argument out of me re: Greenberg and his tenure.
I think he's your classic example of the Peter Principle.

[LastRaider]

It’s going to be a bitter pill to swallow if Scott is suspended and we are paying $400k freight on Leluia.

[RichmondRaider]

Do we reckon the lads have the required gravitas to go one better this year

[BJ]

What a surprise that many of us on the Greenhouse had a far better perception of the legal issues of the Scott case than Greenberg does.

The bigger issue is that Todd Greenberg will now come down far harder on Scott because; the point we have now been brought to with his lawyer. Greenberg doesn’t like to be shown up and doesn’t like those people or organisations outside his multiple connections.

Greenberg did a great job cleaning up the Bulldogs after the Coffs Harbour mess and it’s years of repercussions. Unfortunately he keeps repeating the same methods he successfully used back then to apply to completely different scenarios.

It’s like a successful General fighting the same strategy in his next battle.

[BadnMean]

I have changed my mind, Eid is now my new personal hero. Best lawyer since Denis Denuto. I'm still giggling over "egotistical lunatics".

Sure, Scott will likely never play again now but his lawyer is going HAM. Hilarious.

Greenberg is a guy who just likes to be made to feel relevant -Burgess and Richo and Uncle Nic just sit him down and give him a cup of tea and make him feel like an important guy who has meetings to go to. This approach gets them whatever they want- he clearly prefers a brown noser.

So I don't think this will end well for us, but by golly this guy is entertaining.

[Green Blogger]

What am I missing here? The no fault stand down rule was implemented for serious charges that carry the potential of 11 plus years gaol time if convicted. As ugly as Scott’s alleged behaviour is there is no chance in hell he is facing the prospect of 11 or more years in prison for his drunken behaviour. This seems to be a massive overreach by Greenberg in applying a policy that was implemented for extremely serious alleged crimes carrying the potential of heavy penalties to a much more minor offence.

Whilst I don’t condone Scott’s behaviour - it is a bad look - I don’t understand what policy he can be suspended under before his court hearing based on everything that the NRL has stated the no fault stand down policy is for.

[Coastalraider]

What am I missing here? The no fault stand down rule was implemented for serious charges that carry the potential of 11 plus years gaol time if convicted. As ugly as Scott’s alleged behaviour is there is no chance in hell he is facing the prospect of 11 or more years in prison for his drunken behaviour. This seems to be a massive overreach by Greenberg in applying a policy that was implemented for extremely serious alleged crimes carrying the potential of heavy penalties to a much more minor offence.

Whilst I don’t condone Scott’s behaviour - it is a bad look - I don’t understand what policy he can be suspended under before his court hearing based on everything that the NRL has stated the no fault stand down policy is for.

The wording of the no fault stand down allows its implementation for charges under the 11 year benchmark at the NRLs discretion. That makes sense to a point, for example a domestic violence charge may not meet the 11 year requirement, but for example the case may have publicly available footage showing the incident, for example a mobile phone cam in a nightclub. That may be judged to be so damaging to the sport that the no fault standown could be implemented until the court proceedings are finalised. And that makes sense.

What does not make sense is to pressure a player to release footage that is only available to the court parties. Essentially bullying a player to release the footage or receive a ban, even though the police have said they don’t want that footage released.

In my mind, the charges are serious enough to implement a stand down. Drunk, assault, striking officers of the law, hitting a woman and getting tasered for me is enough of a black eye to say ‘take a seat until this is over’. From reports the courts should have a decision in the short term.

[edwahu]

IMO Greenberg at this point wants to ban him for not just handing over the footage. That's why he went out of his way to mention the difference between Scott's case and Reynolds regarding the level of co-operartion.

Perhaps Eid could be less combative, but again that's not something that should even come into it under a no fault model.

[BJ]

IMO Greenberg at this point wants to ban him for not just handing over the footage. That's why he went out of his way to mention the difference between Scott's case and Reynolds regarding the level of co-operartion.

Perhaps Eid could be less combative, but again that's not something that should even come into it under a no fault model.

Yes. Good point.

That Greenberg dig between Reynolds providing information and Scott’s lawyers holding back, was yet another example of unprofessional executive management.

Just who are legally advising Greenberg if he’s not making these decisions himself?

[LastRaider]

Greenberg and Scott’s lawyers are both playing hard ball. I can’t help but think that Scott’s lawyer is trying a bit of a bluff here and Greenberg is prepared to call it.

If it will be defended “vigorously” by Scott’s lawyer due to his innocence’s he should have no problem showing the NRL.

[Toviii]

Legally speaking, if the NRL is shown the footage and then make a decision to stand him down or let him play, could it later be seen as potentially influencing the trial?

[simo]

Greenberg and Scott’s lawyers are both playing hard ball. I can’t help but think that Scott’s lawyer is trying a bit of a bluff here and Greenberg is prepared to call it.

If it will be defended “vigorously” by Scott’s lawyer due to his innocence’s he should have no problem showing the NRL.

They legally can not.

[BadnMean]

Legally speaking, if the NRL is shown the footage and then make a decision to stand him down or let him play, could it later be seen as potentially influencing the trial?

The NRL lawyers who drafted it did think to include the screamingly obvious phrase "No fault stand down" in the very name of their policy and link it to damage to the games image, which can be done whether or not a player is guilty of something criminal.

[Riaan]

Greenberg and Scott’s lawyers are both playing hard ball. I can’t help but think that Scott’s lawyer is trying a bit of a bluff here and Greenberg is prepared to call it.

If it will be defended “vigorously” by Scott’s lawyer due to his innocence’s he should have no problem showing the NRL.

They legally can not.

Does anyone really believe that the NRL lawyers would be requesting documents that the police have supposedly suppressed??

[Botman]

Legally speaking, if the NRL is shown the footage and then make a decision to stand him down or let him play, could it later be seen as potentially influencing the trial?

That’d certainly be the position I’d argue if I were Scott’s lawyer

This is really simple for Todd, the charges don’t amount to the standard required for the no stand down, so he simply needs to say there will be no ruling made until all the facts are clear, and then the nrl will make their determination on punishment

Todd can’t handle that though. He wants to be a big man. Tough on crime. A platform as old as power and politics itself

[Azza]

Legally speaking, if the NRL is shown the footage and then make a decision to stand him down or let him play, could it later be seen as potentially influencing the trial?

That’d certainly be the position I’d argue if I were Scott’s lawyer

This is really simple for Todd, the charges don’t amount to the standard required for the no stand down, so he simply needs to say there will be no ruling made until all the facts are clear, and then the nrl will make their determination on punishment

Todd can’t handle that though. He wants to be a big man. Tough on crime. A platform as old as power and politics itself

The gravitas of your asininity is perfunctory.

[Johno]

IMO Greenberg at this point wants to ban him for not just handing over the footage. That's why he went out of his way to mention the difference between Scott's case and Reynolds regarding the level of co-operartion.

Perhaps Eid could be less combative, but again that's not something that should even come into it under a no fault model.

Yes. Good point.

That Greenberg dig between Reynolds providing information and Scott’s lawyers holding back, was yet another example of unprofessional executive management.

Just who are legally advising Greenberg if he’s not making these decisions himself?

Greenberg has history with Reynolds and the Bulldogs.
He is not being consistent in this matter.

[edwahu]

Greenberg and Scott’s lawyers are both playing hard ball. I can’t help but think that Scott’s lawyer is trying a bit of a bluff here and Greenberg is prepared to call it.

If it will be defended “vigorously” by Scott’s lawyer due to his innocence’s he should have no problem showing the NRL.

They legally can not.

Does anyone really believe that the NRL lawyers would be requesting documents that the police have supposedly suppressed??

The trial hasn't started has it? I don't think suppression orders even come into it at this point.

Maybe a lawyer can confirm but I'd assume that until evidence is tendered and ruled admissable in court it would at minimum require the consent of both parties to release.

[Northern Raider]

Greenberg and Scott’s lawyers are both playing hard ball. I can’t help but think that Scott’s lawyer is trying a bit of a bluff here and Greenberg is prepared to call it.

If it will be defended “vigorously” by Scott’s lawyer due to his innocence’s he should have no problem showing the NRL.

They legally can not.

Does anyone really believe that the NRL lawyers would be requesting documents that the police have supposedly suppressed??

The trial hasn't started has it? I don't think suppression orders even come into it at this point.

Maybe a lawyer can confirm but I'd assume that until evidence is tendered and ruled admissable in court it would at minimum require the consent of both parties to release.

If that's the case then somebody involved (NRL, Scott's lawyer, Police) only needs to come out and say that. Would end the argument immediately.

[Riaan]

I’d say the lawyers the NRL has on retainer would know this and not hand down a deadline to his legal team that was impossible to adhere to.

[greeneyed]

The only court order in relation to the video so far seems to be that the police provide it to the defence.

[gerg]

It's a little odd that any penalty that the NRL applies to Scott is relative to how much negative media coverage (or any media coverage in general) is caused by the incident? However, isn't the NRL kind of perpetuating that media coverage here?

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

[cat]

It's a little odd that any penalty that the NRL applies to Scott is relative to how much negative media coverage (or any media coverage in general) is caused by the incident? However, isn't the NRL kind of perpetuating that media coverage here?

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

Yep, there is no footage out there, no witnesses to give their view to the journos, no injuries ( apart from the injury his phone got)

The only reason this got to the media was through someone seeing his name on a court charge sheet

So if Greenberg just zipped it right now there is no story till march the 20th

[Cranky Old Man]

I was in Sydney early in the New Year and got to watch the NSW Police perform a "random search" on a young lady who had had too much to drink but was seemingly short of being described as drunk and disorderly. I don't know the young lady, never seen her previously or since, but the behaviour of the Police was deplorable and embarassing. The lady feebly pushed the arm of one of the officers late in the process and got herself arrested for "assault Police". You could see the whole process inexorably moving to this ending like some bad TV show.
I have read somewhere that Scott was subjected to one of these "random searches" the night before the main event, but the search was negative and there was no "assaulting Police" charge applicable. Having seen what I saw I am not surprised that Scott was a little peeved to have copped the treatment twice in two nights, albeit being drunk the second occasion.

[Seiffert82]

Legally speaking, if the NRL is shown the footage and then make a decision to stand him down or let him play, could it later be seen as potentially influencing the trial?

That’d certainly be the position I’d argue if I were Scott’s lawyer

This is really simple for Todd, the charges don’t amount to the standard required for the no stand down, so he simply needs to say there will be no ruling made until all the facts are clear, and then the nrl will make their determination on punishment

Todd can’t handle that though. He wants to be a big man. Tough on crime. A platform as old as power and politics itself

That's pretty much where it stands at the moment. As far as I can tell, the NRL have no legal right to see the footage. If they stand Scott down, it would be on the basis of hearsay and assumption, until the court case.

Different matter for the club though. They can choose to not select a player any time they feel like it, and if there is enough evidence to indicate the player has broken the code of conduct, they can sack him.

This is all quite fascinating. Greenberg needs to be careful not to overstep the mark here. Until the legal verdict has been delivered, he should be trusting the club to do the right thing.

[LimeGreenMachine]

NRL will have to go off the police charge sheet and of course that is only one side of the story and isnt necessarily what happened.
Charges change , get dropped all the time , not saying it will but its not without the possibility

[BJ]

Why is Greenberg now threatening to stand a player down without being given access to the evidence, but was willing to let the Broncos player off for paying hush hush money because the NRL didn’t have access to evidence?

[Northern Raider]

Why is Greenberg now threatening to stand a player down without being given access to the evidence, but was willing to let the Broncos player off for paying hush hush money because the NRL didn’t have access to evidence?

I assume that's a rhetorical question

[BadnMean]

Why is Greenberg now threatening to stand a player down without being given access to the evidence, but was willing to let the Broncos player off for paying hush hush money because the NRL didn’t have access to evidence?

Fair point. Please tweet and send to newspapers.

[DarkRaider]

I can’t really argue with the NRLs stance here. In discretionary cases like this where the alleged offenses aren’t serious enough to warrant automatic stand down it all comes down to potential for damage to the game. The relevant points in this situation, and where it differs from some others, are that a female officer was allegedly involved AND that video of the incident exists.

Combine the above with the charge sheet and it’s easy to imagine a worst case scenario involving some bad footage being leaked/made public causing serious damage to the game. Enough of a risk that he simply can’t play until this is over and he’s been found not guilty.

I doubt the NRL demanded anything, more likely this scenario has been explained to Scott’s camp with the caveat that IF they can view the footage and IF it can allay some of these fears maybe things can happen differently. But otherwise there’s really no other choice.

Also can’t argue with Eid’s stance. There’s every chance the video backs up his claims while still being considered ugly enough for the NRL to enact a stand down. In this hypothetical scenario Curtis is getting stood down either way and there’s nothing to be gained by showing the NRL the footage now. Better to play innocent, act outraged at the request and let the process run it’s course.

[Lui_Bon]

I was in Sydney early in the New Year and got to watch the NSW Police perform a "random search" on a young lady who had had too much to drink but was seemingly short of being described as drunk and disorderly. I don't know the young lady, never seen her previously or since, but the behaviour of the Police was deplorable and embarassing. The lady feebly pushed the arm of one of the officers late in the process and got herself arrested for "assault Police". You could see the whole process inexorably moving to this ending like some bad TV show.
I have read somewhere that Scott was subjected to one of these "random searches" the night before the main event, but the search was negative and there was no "assaulting Police" charge applicable. Having seen what I saw I am not surprised that Scott was a little peeved to have copped the treatment twice in two nights, albeit being drunk the second occasion.

I second this emotion.

Also, and go and ahead and do your worst, I don't give a rats if the alleged offence was against a police man, police woman, or police something else. They are all wearing the uniform and all just doing their job. Which of these they were should have absolutely no bearing on whatever the alleged offender allegedly did. Or on how that whatever should be perceived. Do I need to spell it out?

[greeneyed]

Not NRL's place to view Canberra Raiders centre Curtis Scott's footage

The NRL needs to be careful. Their demands to see the footage of Curtis Scott's arrest puts them at risk of being judge, jury and executioner. And if they do see it, their so-called "no-fault stand-down policy" could end up being the opposite and implying the Canberra Raider's guilt.

Read more: https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/ ... /?cs=14280

[Azza]

I was in Sydney early in the New Year and got to watch the NSW Police perform a "random search" on a young lady who had had too much to drink but was seemingly short of being described as drunk and disorderly. I don't know the young lady, never seen her previously or since, but the behaviour of the Police was deplorable and embarassing. The lady feebly pushed the arm of one of the officers late in the process and got herself arrested for "assault Police". You could see the whole process inexorably moving to this ending like some bad TV show.
I have read somewhere that Scott was subjected to one of these "random searches" the night before the main event, but the search was negative and there was no "assaulting Police" charge applicable. Having seen what I saw I am not surprised that Scott was a little peeved to have copped the treatment twice in two nights, albeit being drunk the second occasion.

I second this emotion.

Also, and go and ahead and do your worst, I don't give a rats if the alleged offence was against a police man, police woman, or police something else. They are all wearing the uniform and all just doing their job. Which of these they were should have absolutely no bearing on whatever the alleged offender allegedly did. Or on how that whatever should be perceived. Do I need to spell it out?

Our worst eh?

Release the robotic Richard Simmons.

[Finchy]

I was in Sydney early in the New Year and got to watch the NSW Police perform a "random search" on a young lady who had had too much to drink but was seemingly short of being described as drunk and disorderly. I don't know the young lady, never seen her previously or since, but the behaviour of the Police was deplorable and embarassing. The lady feebly pushed the arm of one of the officers late in the process and got herself arrested for "assault Police". You could see the whole process inexorably moving to this ending like some bad TV show.
I have read somewhere that Scott was subjected to one of these "random searches" the night before the main event, but the search was negative and there was no "assaulting Police" charge applicable. Having seen what I saw I am not surprised that Scott was a little peeved to have copped the treatment twice in two nights, albeit being drunk the second occasion.

Please. People commenting on subjects they know nothing about.

Rant alert!

Despite various "witness accounts", police cannot perform "random searches". If they did, they'd be getting sued a lot more often for unlawful searches than they already do. They are bound by a little piece of legislation called the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002. The search powers are under Sections 21, 23, 27, 28A, and 208.

To summarise, S.21 applies if the officer suspects on reasonable grounds that the person has in their possession or control stolen property, a dangerous article (firearm, weapon, explosives, etc), anything used or intended to be used in a relevant (indictable) offence, or illicit drugs. S.23 relates specifically to dangerous implements (knives and weapons). S.27 relates to searching people upon arrest. S.28A relates to searching people in custody. S.208 relates to searching intoxicated people who have been detained due to their intoxication (behaving in a disorderly manner, or a manner likely to cause injury to the person or another person or damage to property, or in need of physical protection because the person is intoxicated).

You won't find "random searches" anywhere in that Act, because legally police cannot randomly search people. This is unlike randomly testing drivers for alcohol or drugs, which is legislated (Road Transport Act 2013 Schedule 3 clause 3 and 6). If police were allowed to randomly search anyone they liked whenever they wanted, they'd be lined up on railway station platforms searching business men and women on their way to and from work. Do you see these types of people randomly getting searched? No. They're more likely to be searching Damo and Darren from Mt Druitt (look up Damo and Darren on youtube if you aren't aware of it).

The cops need reasonable suspicion. How might they get reasonable suspicion? If it were a drug-related search, maybe a drug dog indicated. Maybe the person appears drug affected. Maybe the person stinks like pot. Maybe the person is trying to hide something. Maybe the person has previous intell or charges for drugs. Maybe the person admits taking drugs. Maybe the person is in an area known for drug dealing. Maybe it's all of the above. Either way, it can't be just "random". The cops would need to justify the reasonable suspicion in their report or charge, which would get scrutinised by their superiors, the defence solicitor, and the magistrate. Could the cops lie? Possibly. It's bit harder these days though with their cameras recording the incident.

Unless you were actually with this girl you witnessed getting "randomly searched" and know all of the circumstances surrounding why police were speaking with her or searching her, maybe hold off on judging the cops or the alleged "randomness" of the search.

How do you know the cops didn't know her from prior dealings? Maybe she's a known drug dealer or break and enter merchant. Maybe she was just intoxicated and disorderly. Maybe she had intell for various things. As I said, unless you are aware of all of the circumstances, it's easy to jump to conclusions. Maybe the cops were abusing their powers. Maybe the cops were abusing their powers with Curtis Scott. We'll have to wait and see.

If the rumours are true and Scott was handcuffed, searched, and tasered whilst unconscious, then the cops would have some explaining to do. But let's see the footage before speculating that the cops were acting outside their authority based on hearsay.

I have no inside knowledge on the Curtis Scott incident. As we aren't allowed to speculate on matters aside from what has been reported in the media, let's have a hypothetical scenario instead. Let's call our protagonist (antagonist maybe?) Surtis Ccott. Surtis has had a big night on the cans, and passes out in the street. The cops are called to reports of an intoxicated male passed out. The cops attempt to rouse him with little success. Due to the fact he's so intoxicated that he's unconscious, he's probably a candidate to be detained as an intoxicated person under S.206. Now that's he's been detained, the cops attempt to lawfully search him under S.208. He comes to, doesn't like that he's being searched or picked up or whatever, starts bunging it on because A) he's intoxicated, and B) he's a bit of a ****head. At some point he lashes out (kicking?) one or both cops. They taser him. Not sure at what point the handcuffs went on, but that can be debated. Not sure how the cops are the bad guys here, because dealing with aggressive drunk idiots isn't really something anyone wants to do willingly, let alone have it as part of your job description.

I'd bet this hypothetical scenario is closer to the truth than speculation that the cops were just "randomly" searching him because they had nothing better to do. But again, let's how how it plays out in court and see what the footage shows.

Rant over.

[Cranky Old Man]

Finchy. I stated in my post that I didn't know the girl involved. I made no claim about the reasons for the search undertaken.
The search produced a negative result, except for the charge of "assault Police" that was loudly proclaimed.