Karmichael Hunt charged with cocaine supply.

[Train Without a Station]

For every individual who escapes serious long term effects there are plenty who don't. Do we allow people to speed on the roads because some people can do it "safely" at no risk to themselves?

Really? I'd argue that based on the widespread use, yet smaller totals of actually seriously affected people requiring medical or psychological assistance, I'd say it's more so for every individual who doesn't escape serious long term effects, there are plenty that do.

That's what the numbers say anyway.

 

[Sully]

So, if I have this right, Hunt is now in the shitter for telling the police about others involved in criminal activity. What are we eleven?

 

[BDA]

To be fair to Hunt, he didn't really rat on any particular teammate. He managed to tip toe around the issue. His statement is basically that there were various other players present but that he cant say for certain which players, if any, were using drugs.

Unfortunately for him though (and this is what I said at the time he took the plea bargain) part of the agreement was that he provide statements and, presumably, give evidence against the guys charged with trafficking. That's not something I'd be too keen on doing.

I remain of the opinion that his plea bargain was ill advised. That's what you get when you have lawyers that are ex coppers). Then again I have no idea what was going on behind the scenes in terms of what position the Reds/ARU were taking at the time. I still strongly believe that the other players charged will be acquitted through lack of evidence (unless of course the prosecution can get one of the dealers to give evidence against them).

 

[Gnostic]

this I have an issue with, using this logic, alcohol, fatty fast foods, sugary drinks or fast cars would not be allowed "because some people can do it "safely" at no risk to themselves"

This just debases the argument and takes it to the ridiculous. As for alcohol, and fast cars they are heavily regulated (add cigarettes) because they are recognised to cause harm. And here is the difference, it is a fundamental difference of starting point, the legislators frame the laws not for the protection of the individual undertaking risky behaviour.

The laws are framed rightly to protect other members of the public from those taking the risks. Such risk taking is an anti-social activity.

And funnily enough there is a big public health campaign about fatty food and sugar on public health grounds, because they increase risks and public costs.

 

[fatprop]

Great, more personnel responsibility removed as the nanny state increases .....................

(I would just legalise all drugs)

 

[Scrubber2050]

Great, more personnel responsibility removed as the nanny state increases .......

(I would just legalise all drugs)

fatprop - are you "inside" at the moment

 

[Gnostic]

Great, more personnel responsibility removed as the nanny state increases .......

(I would just legalise all drugs)

Funny I probably would too, but at the same time there would be strict liability for anybody infringing on another's right whilst intoxicated, or suffering some psychosis from such use. AND there would be little in the way of funding past the first rehab. attempt. No more nanny state for you, total accountability and responsibility for the individual, do what ever you want, but this is the result if it turns to shit, don't expect me to pick up the tab. I'd rather fund cancer beds, diabetes needles and drugs, general medicine.

 

[Train Without a Station]

But the cause of the greatest infringement on others' rights whilst intoxicated is alcohol. A perfectly legal substance.

A great number of people suffer a range of issues from alcoholism.

Clearly the heavy regulation is not overly effective.

 

[RedsHappy]

When you plead guilty,there is nothing to test,nor prove.
For the 100th time,he accepted his guilt and elected to have the matter dealt with under the justice mediation system in Qld.
KHunt couldn't do the same,as his was a 'victimless' crime.

https://www.qld.gov.au/law/legal-me...ting-disputes-out-of-court/justice-mediation/

Only problem is, he did not 'plead guilty', and, you're quite wrong, in justice mediation, the pre-condition is not as you say 'he accepted his guilt'. Your link above purely refers to a lot of generic processes, and nothing re the QC (Quade Cooper) case.

The QC (Quade Cooper) haters as of 2009 wanted this whole episode to badly discredit QC (Quade Cooper) and every nuance of every media report was extracted to 'show he's been guilty and was proven guilty of an offence'. The haters were typically mortified when all charges v QC (Quade Cooper) were dropped, and he did not admit guilt, and no conviction was recorded, and the two parties involved solved the matter amicably via confidential and quite rapid mediation.

http://www.theroar.com.au/2010/07/16/burglary-charge-against-quade-cooper-dropped/

Even after that outcome, many haters remained to twitter and gossip in the dark shadows that 'he really was guilty of stealing'.

 

[I like to watch]

Absolute poppycock.
The generic process requires as a pre condition that the defendant accepts responsibility for their actions and/or acknowledge harm has been done.
https://elo.legalaid.qld.gov.au/web...egseries/CLE/2008/justicemediationprogram.pdf


It's overseen by the court system,and only once it's been completed to the satisfaction of all parties does the court consider dropping the charges.


You seem to take great comfort in the fact that no conviction was recorded.
Go down to any local court,in most cases, first offenders(who have plead guilty) are given a section 10(in NSW) or its equivalent, for low level offences.
They also have no convictions recorded.

If KHunt has no conviction recorded,does it mean he didn't do it?

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

Not sure how QC (Quade Cooper)'s legal issues circa 2009 are relevant here..................

Returning to the matter at hand, call me a hypocrite but I have no real problem with KH shopping his dealer, such people being from the lowest genus of life, scumbags who profit from the misery of others, but to claim he had "no option" but to shop his (presumably former) mates is bollocks. Could just as easily have said "there were lots of people & lots of drugs, other than me I couldn't honestly say who was using & who wasn't". Simples.

 

[Gnostic]

Absolute poppycock.
The generic process requires as a pre condition that the defendant accepts responsibility for their actions and/or acknowledge harm has been done.
https://elo.legalaid.qld.gov.au/web...egseries/CLE/2008/justicemediationprogram.pdf


It's overseen by the court system,and only once it's been completed to the satisfaction of all parties does the court consider dropping the charges.


You seem to take great comfort in the fact that no conviction was recorded.
Go down to any local court,in most cases, first offenders(who have plead guilty) are given a section 10(in NSW) or its equivalent, for low level offences.
They also have no convictions recorded.

If KHunt has no conviction recorded,does it mean he didn't do it?

How is it poppycock? QC (Quade Cooper) didn't enter a plea. The matter was dealt with out of court as recorded and the charges were withdrawn by the Police after the successful resoltuion. This is the whole point of a court diversion scheme. He was not found guilty of any offence and orders were not made by the court. The matter was confidentially mediated as per the link you yourself posted. The information is there.

A Section 10 is a very different thing in NSW. Under Section 10 the offender is found guilty and then a number of things can happen without proceeding to conviction which is different and separate from the finding of guilt. The options are 1) Dismissal of the charges, 2) Good behaviour bond 3) entry into an intervention plan.

http://www.judcom.nsw.gov.au/publications/benchbks/sentencing/dismissal_of_charges.html

There are court diversion programs in NSW, most usually for juvenile offenders, but the Cannabis Cautioning scheme is a fairly well known one.

 

[BDA]

Funny I probably would too, but at the same time there would be strict liability for anybody infringing on another's right whilst intoxicated, or suffering some psychosis from such use. AND there would be little in the way of funding past the first rehab. attempt. No more nanny state for you, total accountability and responsibility for the individual, do what ever you want, but this is the result if it turns to shit, don't expect me to pick up the tab. I'd rather fund cancer beds, diabetes needles and drugs, general medicine.

ha. i was with you until you let society go to shit.

I think regardless of whether drugs are legal or not you need to invest a lot of money in education and health services to reduce and treat drug use. Your squeaky wheel needs to get the grease.

 

[BDA]

Not sure how QC (Quade Cooper)'s legal issues circa 2009 are relevant here......

Returning to the matter at hand, call me a hypocrite but I have no real problem with KH shopping his dealer, such people being from the lowest genus of life, scumbags who profit from the misery of others, but to claim he had "no option" but to shop his (presumably former) mates is bollocks. Could just as easily have said "there were lots of people & lots of drugs, other than me I couldn't honestly say who was using & who wasn't". Simples.

excuse my ignorance, but exactly which specific player has Hunt given any solid reliable evidence against?

He appears to have walked that very fine line whereby he hasn't actually given any evidence which could lead to a prosecution.

 

[Gnostic]

ha. i was with you until you let society go to shit.

I think regardless of whether drugs are legal or not you need to invest a lot of money in education and health services to reduce and treat drug use. Your squeaky wheel needs to get the grease.

Lots of money into preventative education. Give em a chance at rehab. Don't spend the next 20 years trying to get people to stop doing something they want to and wasting shit loads of tax payer funds along the way. Personal responsibility can be a bitch, but freedom, real freedom must always come with that price otherwise it isn't really freedom.

I would prefer to spend the money on minimising the harm to other people from unreformable drug users. Replace the squeaky wheel and move on. Let them find their own f^%$^ grease.

I have thread jacked this far enough.

 

[I like to watch]

How is it poppycock? QC (Quade Cooper) didn't enter a plea. The matter was dealt with out of court as recorded and the charges were withdrawn by the Police after the successful resoltuion. This is the whole point of a court diversion scheme. He was not found guilty of any offence and orders were not made by the court. The matter was confidentially mediated as per the link you yourself posted. The information is there.

A Section 10 is a very different thing in NSW. Under Section 10 the offender is found guilty and then a number of things can happen without proceeding to conviction which is different and separate from the finding of guilt. The options are 1) Dismissal of the charges, 2) Good behaviour bond 3) entry into an intervention plan.

http://www.judcom.nsw.gov.au/publications/benchbks/sentencing/dismissal_of_charges.html

There are court diversion programs in NSW, most usually for juvenile offenders, but the Cannabis Cautioning scheme is a fairly well known one.

semantics.
Did he plead guilty, or was he found guilty ? no.
Did he have to admit to the offence to enter,and then to successfully complete the diversionary program? Yes
Here's a better link
https://www.qld.gov.au/law/legal-me...ting-disputes-out-of-court/justice-mediation/
The Section 10 is a demonstration that guilt can be found,with no conviction recorded,so you have gone off in a tangent there.

But, back to KHunt.
How should he treated by the court system?
I say no less leniently than his team mate.

 

[Joeleee]

Hunt got into trouble with the law, as many other players from many other codes have done before him. He got in trouble for doing something that I'm sure many other rugby players and staff do fairly regularly. It would be a very dangerous precedent to sack him over recreational drug use, as it would be very unsurprising if other, more beloved, players were to fall afoul of a similar issue. The legal trouble caused problems and Hunt took his lashings. In my mind, the matter should be done.

 

[liquor box]

Not sure how QC (Quade Cooper)'s legal issues circa 2009 are relevant here......

Returning to the matter at hand, call me a hypocrite but I have no real problem with KH shopping his dealer, such people being from the lowest genus of life, scumbags who profit from the misery of others, but to claim he had "no option" but to shop his (presumably former) mates is bollocks. Could just as easily have said "there were lots of people & lots of drugs, other than me I couldn't honestly say who was using & who wasn't". Simples.

Sounds like a flawed plan, if the CCC has proof he knew who he was with then he will be guilty of perjury and possible jail time.
If there were lots of people then name them all, I am sure the police have details of times and places and functions that were attended.

Remember that Khunt was also a dealer (and made a deal to plead to possess) and it is possible that those he used with were also dealing to other friends so they are all scumbags who profit from the misery of others.

To me giving up names is the only good thing to come out of this situation, if give police chance to catch more of these scum

 

[Joeleee]

they are all scumbags who profit from the misery of others.

Do they profit from the misery of others, or from giving others enjoyment and exactly what they want?

 

[fatprop]

Remember that Khunt was also a dealer (and made a deal to plead to possess) and it is possible that those he used with were also dealing to other friends so they are all scumbags who profit from the misery of others.

Hi

I am going to pick up some stuff/beer/bananas, do you want some?

That is all it takes to become a "dealer", not really scumbags