Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
Admitting to committing a crime = vindication.
Karmichael Hunt charged with cocaine supply.
- Thread starter Brumbieman
- Start date
- Status
BDA
Jim Lenehan (48)
Well that's not actually correct. Police have a discretion whether they charge someone with an offence or not. The reality is that the CCC have been investigating a fairly major drug trafficking syndicate and have, presumably hundreds if not thousands of phone taps of drugs being supplied by members of the syndicate to various members of the community. There would have literally been 100's of other people that were caught "allegedly" buying things from these suppliers. Yet the only ones charged were those with high-profiles. They've been very selective as to who they've charged.
How do we know these are the only people charged? Would we necessarily hear about it if some of the dealers the syndicate were supplying to had been arrested?
We know that people at the centre of the syndicate were arrested and charged and then these current NRL players and Hunt.
We know that people at the centre of the syndicate were arrested and charged and then these current NRL players and Hunt.
Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
BDA
Jim Lenehan (48)
You raise a good point that its possible they have charged others that we haven't heard about from what i understand they haven't and I think it would have likely been reported.The CCC seem to be very public about who they charge. To continue to get funding they need to be seen to be to effective. If there are more charges to come, I suspect they will be actual dealers rather than people buying for general personal use (ala the footballers) and I think there'll be some reporting on it.
BDA
Jim Lenehan (48)
I was merely responding to QH's comment that Police are "obliged" to prosecute.
Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
Chris McCracken
Jim Clark (26)
Applying Occam's Razor to the a few of the questions being asked, you see there is probably not too much to all of this. Of course, it's still speculation, but it's reasonable.
How did they end up in the mess? The CCC happened across them in the investigation into a wider ring. That's been pretty well reported, I think.
Why have they been charged with supply? Because they were buying from a guy who usually only wholesales and in total quantities that qualify. They may have even needed to charge them with supply to keep that pretence up to get other suppliers.
Someone on this thread has already mentioned this. I forget who.
Why charge them at all, then? Because their name will come up in evidence and then, you can bet the CCC would be accused of letting them slide because they're footy players. That would be about the worst thing that could happen.
Do they have evidence? To paraphrase a Police officer friend of mine, the DPP doesn't charge you if they don't think they have you. It's not like Law & Order. They don't have enough money to shake you down for a plea bargain. Though, they might need to make something happen purely because of the point above.
Why did they reduce the charges against Hunt? Because he gave them an easy out. It's no different to any situation. If you give someone an easy out, they'll consider it. They don't want to convict and deal with these guys. It would drag on forever and the CCC would have its name and investigation methods dragged through the media.
Allowing the guilty plea means they can say that it is dealt with, leave actual punishment in the hands of the club and get on with catching bad guys.
Why aren't they charging the other "dealers"? Firstly, they are. Secondly, I would think you'd want to get this stink out of the way first. The last thing you want if you're the CCC, the Reds, ARU, NRL, AFL or Karmichael Hunt is him charged along with a proper low life. It serves no purpose for anyone.
Why didn't the Reds sack him? As has been suggested, I'm sure there will be a contractual reason. But also, they need him.
See, it doesn't have to be a conspiracy or a screw up. Sometimes, it just is.
How did they end up in the mess? The CCC happened across them in the investigation into a wider ring. That's been pretty well reported, I think.
Why have they been charged with supply? Because they were buying from a guy who usually only wholesales and in total quantities that qualify. They may have even needed to charge them with supply to keep that pretence up to get other suppliers.
Someone on this thread has already mentioned this. I forget who.
Why charge them at all, then? Because their name will come up in evidence and then, you can bet the CCC would be accused of letting them slide because they're footy players. That would be about the worst thing that could happen.
Do they have evidence? To paraphrase a Police officer friend of mine, the DPP doesn't charge you if they don't think they have you. It's not like Law & Order. They don't have enough money to shake you down for a plea bargain. Though, they might need to make something happen purely because of the point above.
Why did they reduce the charges against Hunt? Because he gave them an easy out. It's no different to any situation. If you give someone an easy out, they'll consider it. They don't want to convict and deal with these guys. It would drag on forever and the CCC would have its name and investigation methods dragged through the media.
Allowing the guilty plea means they can say that it is dealt with, leave actual punishment in the hands of the club and get on with catching bad guys.
Why aren't they charging the other "dealers"? Firstly, they are. Secondly, I would think you'd want to get this stink out of the way first. The last thing you want if you're the CCC, the Reds, ARU, NRL, AFL or Karmichael Hunt is him charged along with a proper low life. It serves no purpose for anyone.
Why didn't the Reds sack him? As has been suggested, I'm sure there will be a contractual reason. But also, they need him.
See, it doesn't have to be a conspiracy or a screw up. Sometimes, it just is.
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
Which they are.
EDIT: You're confusing the Police discretion to "arrest" or to proceed by way of summons or attendance notice with some sort of discretion whether or not to put someone before a court where evidence exists of a crime.
http://mhrm.mhcc.org.au/chapter-6/6b.aspx
BDA
Jim Lenehan (48)
Actually police have a wide discretion when deciding to prosecute, but I'm not going to labour the point. lets agree to disagree.
The CCC in particular is an organisation which has extraordinary powers of examination for the purpose of investigating serious criminal activity and misconduct. People called before the CCC must answer questions even if it implicates them in criminal activity. The result is that the examinations before the CCC reveal a lot of minor criminal activity, but the purpose of the examinations is to build a case in respect of serious crimes. The reality is that the CCC encounter a lot of evidence of minor crime but they ordinarily exercise their discretion not to pursue those matters.
BDA
Jim Lenehan (48)
This is the point i disagree with. the CCC need convictions. that's how they justify their enormous funding. The more high profile the better.
BDA
Jim Lenehan (48)
im not confused at all. Issuing someone with a Notice to Appear IS CHARGING SOMEONE! and yes that is a matter of discretion. Once charged, the DPP/PPC have a discretion of whether to continue a prosecution. Both are matters of discretion.
Do you seriously think your average detective is OBLIGATED to press charges for every minor crime he comes across?! they would serious never catch any proper criminals if that discretion didn't exist.
I think that's enough legal debate for the day. I'm going surfing.
Chris McCracken
Jim Clark (26)
I think that you are correct in isolation. But in the light of the recent ASADA stuff, along with the fact that these guys were not targets of the investigation, I wholeheartedly disagree.
They provide a distraction to the case and a celebrity photo-op to anyone charged in the investigation. Not to mention the he said-she said if they got off the distribution charges and the real dealers didn't.
The CCC need convictions, alright. But I also think they know the right convictions to go to the wall for. I suspect they would have some very good convictions set up off the back of this. Ones that would really justify their funding - not make the public angry the way ASADA did.
Anyway, I recognise that I'm speculating. I'm not married to the idea.
B
Bobby Sands
Guest
I would be interested to know if people think other Australian rugby players aren't taking coke.. Because if that is the case, it is purely ludicrous.
Chris McCracken
Jim Clark (26)
Of course some are. And what is ludicrous exactly? None of the others have been caught in a police investigation.
B
Bobby Sands
Guest
It's ludicrous to think he is this person of questionable character because he has been entangled in all of this.
Chris McCracken
Jim Clark (26)
"Entangled?" OK, then. You're entitled to your opinion.
Nonetheless, I haven't read all of the thread, but I don't see a lot of people saying he's a bad person.
Nonetheless, I haven't read all of the thread, but I don't see a lot of people saying he's a bad person.
B
Bobby Sands
Guest
Keep reading then.
- Status