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

[greeneyed]

Police agree to let NRL view Curtis Scott video footage

Curtis Scott's legal team has written to the NRL and informed the governing body it will have access to the police video taken during his arrest on the Australia Day weekend they think could spare the Canberra Raiders centre from being stood down.

"But in my view, and when you consider what I as a defence lawyer must consider, and what ultimately the court must consider, I'm confident Curtis should be fine.

Read more: https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/sport/ ... 53zhn.html

[yeh raiders]

Who told Scott to put the balm on?

It’s definitely preposterous !

[BadnMean]

Who told Scott to put the balm on?

It’s definitely preposterous !

Do you think Scott has any idea his lawyers last NRL client was found guilty, did jail time, in fact was the only one hung out to dry over the whole sordid saga- which included Scott's current manager who was in on the fix- and in fact didn't live long afterward?

[EJ]

"But in my view, and when you consider what I as a defence lawyer must consider, and what ultimately the court must consider, I'm confident Curtis should be fine."



Above which butcher in Dulwich Hill is this guy's office again?

It's such a great sentence. Finishing with "should be fine". That's tea spitting stuff.

You know what, he actually looks a bit like Farouk.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

[Coastalraider]

I’d say there is a ban coming, I have no confidence after seeing his lawyer.

The only thing that changes with this news about the video being viewed by the NRL is the date the DT receive a leaked copy. We should all have seen it by Saturday now.

[greeneyed]

I’d say there is a ban coming, I have no confidence after seeing his lawyer.

The only thing that changes with this news about the video being viewed by the NRL is the date the DT receive a leaked copy. We should all have seen it by Saturday now.

Given police aren’t handing it over, rather allowing the NRL to come and view it...and not have a copy, I’m not sure about that.

[FuiFui BradBrad]

"But in my view, and when you consider what I as a defence lawyer must consider, and what ultimately the court must consider, I'm confident Curtis should be fine."



Above which butcher in Dulwich Hill is this guy's office again?

It's such a great sentence. Finishing with "should be fine". That's tea spitting stuff.

You know what, he actually looks a bit like Farouk.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

Part of his defence for letting Scott off is “It’s the vibe, it’s Mabo”

[edwahu]

Google suggests Eid is a pretty good law talking guy.

[Coastalraider]

I’d say there is a ban coming, I have no confidence after seeing his lawyer.

The only thing that changes with this news about the video being viewed by the NRL is the date the DT receive a leaked copy. We should all have seen it by Saturday now.

Given police aren’t handing it over, rather allowing the NRL to come and view it...and not have a copy, I’m not sure about that.

Ah ok, if that is the mechanism then it should be fine. If the NRL access a copy, that’s when I thought it would ‘slip through the cracks’.

[Seiffert82]

The 11 year thing is for court matters that havent concluded yet so that the nrl arent seen to be determining guilt. They brought it in this rule for instances exactly like this one and it’s ridiculous todd greenburg sees a need to alter it the second a non broncos case falls short of the 11 years benchmark they set

I'm not defending the NRL or the 11 year policy. It's all entirely arbitrary. They've always made these things up on the run.

I'm just saying that people are kidding themselves if they think the NRL are ever going to make up a rule and stick to it. They will always intervene, especially when the club isn't the Roosters or Broncos.

The 11 year rule is not relevant here so shouldn't be part of the conversation.
NRL can still stand players for any number of reasons if it's deemed detrimental to the image of the game e.g. Tyrone May.

Absolutely.

One of their players got tasered after a night on the turps and it was all over the national news. Of course they are going to get involved.

The real question is whether they feel the need to intervene, or if they will leave it up to the club to handle the situation with the player. The NRL will do what they will do.

The only thing I'm interested in is how the club handles it, as they are the ones with all the information - from the police, the player, his manager and his teammates. Everyone else here just has opinions based on what has been reported.

[LastRaider]

I hate agreeing with the pigbot

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

It really is the worst. But he's pretty right this time..

A bitter pill to swallow

[-TW-]

Google suggests Eid is a pretty good law talking guy.

So was Dennis Denuto, he got a plaque on the door outside his office

Sent from my ELE-L29 using Tapatalk

[bonehead]

so obviously the cctv from nrl hq that was mentioned day 1 wasn't good enough

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

[Northern Raider]

My guess is the footage does not paint a good picture for both Scott and the police.

[Seiffert82]

Yeah, I don't think there are any winners here.

Scott's lawyer hoping to get off some of the criminal charges based on some technicality won't absolve him from the fundamental issue of how he found himself in that situation. It's all likely to be messed up.

[BadnMean]

Yeah, I don't think there are any winners here.

Scott's lawyer hoping to get off some of the criminal charges based on some technicality won't absolve him from the fundamental issue of how he found himself in that situation. It's all likely to be messed up.

Not quite.

If the lawyer proves the arrest was unlawful because of a "technicality"- eg an UNLAWFUL arrest because process wasn't followed. That process being the law and what they are trained to do... Then everything that follows has to be dropped.

Can't be charged with resist arrest if the arrest is unlawful.

Assaulting police is fully worded as "assault police in the execution of their duty"- an unlawful arrest is not in the execution of their duty. By definition unlawful arrests are not police duties. So that gets dropped too.

That's not me making stuff up, that's how police not following correct procedure (e.g cuffing an unconscious person, or tasing a handcuffed person are both no-no's) can causes a whole case to collapse. Everything after that point gets dropped.

Whether you think that's right or he's still an idiot is beside the point by then. It might be interesting if the cuffing and arrest was correct but the tasering was done under unlawful circumstances, then some might stick if done beforehand.

[edwahu]

If he wins the case they can still punish him for getting drunk and falling asleep in public, but by NRL standards that would at maximum deserve a slapping with a wet leaf.

[Botman]

Yeah, I don't think there are any winners here.

Scott's lawyer hoping to get off some of the criminal charges based on some technicality won't absolve him from the fundamental issue of how he found himself in that situation. It's all likely to be messed up.

Not quite.

If the lawyer proves the arrest was unlawful because of a "technicality"- eg an UNLAWFUL arrest because process wasn't followed. That process being the law and what they are trained to do... Then everything that follows has to be dropped.

Can't be charged with resist arrest if the arrest is unlawful.

Assaulting police is fully worded as "assault police in the execution of their duty"- an unlawful arrest is not in the execution of their duty. By definition unlawful arrests are not police duties. So that gets dropped too.

That's not me making stuff up, that's how police not following correct procedure (e.g cuffing an unconscious person, or tasing a handcuffed person are both no-no's) can causes a whole case to collapse. Everything after that point gets dropped.

Whether you think that's right or he's still an idiot is beside the point by then. It might be interesting if the cuffing and arrest was correct but the tasering was done under unlawful circumstances, then some might stick if done beforehand.

Yep, basically if Scott's lawyer's claims are correct and the police have acted outside their duty... the other charges amount to trespassing and offensive behaviour (likely swearing)... which will land him pretty much off Scott Free.

I very much doubt that's how his plays out but if the lawyer can get the assault charge dismissed, this is ultimately a very minor offence in terms of the other charges...

[Finchy]

so obviously the cctv from nrl hq that was mentioned day 1 wasn't good enough

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

Probably because the CCTV was likely some distance away and probably wouldn't capture any audio. The police footage would have audio and be very close to the action.

[Seiffert82]

Yeah, I don't think there are any winners here.

Scott's lawyer hoping to get off some of the criminal charges based on some technicality won't absolve him from the fundamental issue of how he found himself in that situation. It's all likely to be messed up.

Not quite.

If the lawyer proves the arrest was unlawful because of a "technicality"- eg an UNLAWFUL arrest because process wasn't followed. That process being the law and what they are trained to do... Then everything that follows has to be dropped.

Can't be charged with resist arrest if the arrest is unlawful.

Assaulting police is fully worded as "assault police in the execution of their duty"- an unlawful arrest is not in the execution of their duty. By definition unlawful arrests are not police duties. So that gets dropped too.

That's not me making stuff up, that's how police not following correct procedure (e.g cuffing an unconscious person, or tasing a handcuffed person are both no-no's) can causes a whole case to collapse. Everything after that point gets dropped.

Whether you think that's right or he's still an idiot is beside the point by then. It might be interesting if the cuffing and arrest was correct but the tasering was done under unlawful circumstances, then some might stick if done beforehand.

I think you misunderstand me.

I don't care what happens with the legal proceedings and whether the charges are dropped or not. That's not the fundamental issue here. The club can do whatever it wants to manage the situation, irrespective of whether he is found guilty or not.

All I care about is what the club does with a player who clearly did the wrong thing. From what the club has said; Scott wrote himself off; he got bundled into a cab by his teammates to return to the hotel; at some stage he got out of the cab and for whatever reason he threw his phone at a passing car (which also meant he didn't contact the club for days after the event); he then passed out in the park and ultimately he was in such a state that he got tasered and arrested (whether rightly or wrongly).

That is not a normal night out with the boys. *cue the hilarious jokes*

It's the behaviour that LED to the arrest and the fact he didn't contact the club afterwards that concerns me. At the Storm he was dropped for his behaviour. It's now our club's problem to sort out and it really pisses me off. Ricky Stuart was furious at him and rightfully so.

I've seen many, many players at our club behave like this in recent seasons and it very rarely ends well in the long run. The legal situation does not absolve him of the underlying behavioural issues.

[greeneyed]

Canberra Raiders had Curtis Scott contingencies before they knew they needed them

The Canberra Raiders started preparing for how to cover Curtis Scott before his immediate playing future was even in doubt.

"We look at contingencies for all positions. We're always mixing our squads around, changing them up, because you just don't know when something's going to happen around the corner," assistant coach Andrew McFadden said. "That goes for all positions. We're well prepared for anything that happens."

Read more: https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/ ... /?cs=14239

[cat]

Sivo picked for the eels 9s team, I know he hasn't been stood down yet but it is interesting they picked him

[greeneyed]

Curtis Scott splits with lawyer ahead of court case

Curtis Scott has sensationally parted company with his lawyer in a stunning twist in the court case that will decide his playing future.

Scott is set to be represented by Sam Macedone after splitting with outspoken lawyer Danny Eid.

Read more: https://www.smh.com.au/sport/nrl/curtis ... 540fh.html

Scott’s legal fight takes fresh twist as he fights to save his NRL future

Canberra’s Curtis Scott has split with his lawyer ahead of a court case which could have huge ramifications on his playing future.

Channel Nine’s Danny Weidler wrote on Twitter that NRL CEO Todd Greenberg had seen the vision prior to flying to Perth for the Nines.

Read more: https://www.foxsports.com.au/nrl/nrl-pr ... 717f5e902d

[BadnMean]

What a dumpster fire.

Probably a good move but it may be a bit late.

Macedon seems to have some credibility in legal circles + is a bit of a media player- knowing the ins and outs of which couldn't hurt in this kind of case.

[edwahu]

haha the twists keep coming.

Hopefully this was on club advice.

[Timbo]

[Danaman137]

Just here to see if Azza is worried.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Azza]

Nah, I figured Scott would be dropped long ago. Corona has me more worried.

[FuiFui BradBrad]

Curtis Scott splits with lawyer ahead of court case

Curtis Scott has sensationally parted company with his lawyer in a stunning twist in the court case that will decide his playing future.

Scott is set to be represented by Sam Macedone after splitting with outspoken lawyer Danny Eid.

Read more: https://www.smh.com.au/sport/nrl/curtis ... 540fh.html

[BJ]

Why are NRL headquarters leaking to Weidler?

No wonder any lawyer or player would be concerned about allowing them to view evidence before a court case.

[KasparRaider]

Glad to see that he has ditched Danny “Eid” Denuto and hired someone else.

[Northern Raider]

What a dumpster fire.

Probably a good move but it may be a bit late.

Macedon seems to have some credibility in legal circles + is a bit of a media player- knowing the ins and outs of which couldn't hurt in this kind of case.

It was suggested in an earlier post that small independent lawyers can use cases like this to boost their profile. Maybe Scott and his advisors have recognised this to be the case. Didn't feel it was working out for his own best interests.

[Northern Raider]

Why are NRL headquarters leaking to Weidler?

No wonder any lawyer or player would be concerned about allowing them to view evidence before a court case.

What did they leak?

[simo]

Agree. Im pretty sure our club would have been watching this and asking “why is your lawyer making multiple media statements? We want this handled as quietly as possible. You make noise, you force greenburgs hand”

[BJ]

Why are NRL headquarters leaking to Weidler?

No wonder any lawyer or player would be concerned about allowing them to view evidence before a court case.

What did they leak?

That the NRL have now viewed the footage and are requesting more stuff.