what im interested to see is what the Reds/ARU decided to do for the rest of 2015. I'm not too sure but I wouldn't be surprised if the Hunt is allowed to return to the team shortly pending his matter being resolved at a hearing (provided he actually intends to plead not guilty. The media interest will settle down a bit over the coming weeks and even more so after the first mention of the matter is out of the way in March. I suspect theyll stand him down until his first mention, he'll enter a plea of not guilty and adjourn the matter to the summary callover (i.e. the first step in moving the matter to a defended hearing) and then it'll be probably a good 2 months before the matter is back before the court. By then tempers should have cooled a fair bit and I think the proper move, from both a fan and organisation perspective will be to allow him to return to the team pending a finding of guilt (given that he is, and should be, presumed innocent).
An interesting ethical conundrum you pose @BDA.
I know that there is a presumption of innocence, and also the DPP has prosecuted innocent parties for fairly serious crimes, and failed to secure a guilty verdict, and on occasions failed to secure a guilty verdict on a "not proven" basis or the inadmissibility of a key piece of evidence, against parties that were rather guilty in all other respects. I seem to recall that the Scottish Courts have "guilty", "not guilty" and "not proven" as the verdicts that they can hand down.
Would someone with a pending drugs supply case be able to travel internationally, or more to the point, would they be able to get all the necessary visas? Would the Courts view that there would be an additional flight risk?
If it was a more serious offence such as attempted murder, GBH, rape, arson, reckless use of a vehicle, armed robbery etc, and the alleged offender was granted bail, under the presumption of innocence provisions should they return to the team, training and playing?
At what stage does the bringing the game/team/club into disrepute provision kick in, and how does this work if a chap is stood down, but is later found not guilty by the court?
OJ Simpson was found not guilty of murder. He was innocent in the eyes of the law. If the offence occurred in his prime, and he was a Reds Super Rugby player, what would/should the Reds do?