Karmichael Hunt charged with cocaine supply.

[redveincheese]

One thing about all this is rather confusing. I realize we have scant information in regards to the details here, however it is being reported that Khunt was charged/summonsed in relation to the supply of a dangerous drug. It is also being reported that some of the others implicated have been charged with possession as well.
Now, can someone with legal knowledge explain to me how someone can be charged with supply without actually possessing any of the substance they have been accused of supplying. Surely a charge of supply must accompany a charge of possession.

 

[Ash]

Seems like a whole lot of Queenslanders cutting off their nose to spite their face.

Although I did read an article this week that a medical study has found that around 1,000 heart attacks each year in Australia are caused by extreme anger and rage so perhaps it's for the best that some of you have stopped watching Rugby HQ.

I wouldn't want your vitriol towards a journalist to literally kill you.

Actually, I have now found that a select few NSW supporters are staunch supporters of GeeRob, whilst most people now regard her with the usual disdain of rubbish journos. She's no better or worse than Growden, just different. Which is to say, for a knowledgeable rugby pundit who doesn't see things through a very blue tint, she's not worth spending any time over.

Which is a shame, as initially she looked to have potential.

And for the record she's a a Queenslander, and seems to be reflective of the Queensland standard of journalism (bad).

 

[Braveheart81]

Actually, I have now found that a select few NSW supporters are staunch supporters of GeeRob, whilst most people now regard her with the usual disdain of rubbish journos. She's no better or worse than Growden, just different. Which is to say, for a knowledgeable rugby pundit who doesn't see things through a very blue tint, she's not worth spending any time over.

Which is a shame, as initially she looked to have potential.

And for the record she's a a Queenslander, and seems to be reflective of the Queensland standard of journalism (bad).

I guess I'm coming at this issue more from the perspective that I'm not going to stop watching the only Aussie rugby panel show because I don't like one of the hosts.

I don't watch Rugby HQ because I like and support GeeRob and I won't stop watching it because I don't like her.

I watch it because I like rugby.

 

[I like to watch]

I agree with you on this point.

Funnily enough, she was one of the ones supporting and defending someone who was found guilty of an offence (while not a crime, something I believe could have been said to have "brought the game into disrepute") and yet is very quick to make statements such as last night about others.

I guess it depends on what colour they wear.

Did she defend KB (Kurtley Beale)?
My understanding was the KB (Kurtley Beale) fiasco brought other things to light that required clarification that was never forthcoming.

 

[Ash]

Don't get me wrong, I will still watch something because GeeRob is on it. It's just one person that said otherwise.

I just fail to see why several people here put up such a staunch defence of GeeRob (primarily yourself BH and baabaa, no offence to either of you guys, I just can't see what you see in her journalistically).

 

[Strewthcobber]

One thing about all this is rather confusing. I realize we have scant information in regards to the details here, however it is being reported that Khunt was charged/summonsed in relation to the supply of a dangerous drug. It is also being reported that some of the others implicated have been charged with possession as well.
Now, can someone with legal knowledge explain to me how someone can be charged with supply without actually possessing any of the substance they have been accused of supplying. Surely a charge of supply must accompany a charge of possession.

Senior Counsel Google gives me this

In order for the Police to prove their case at Court, they must prove each of the following matters beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused supplied (eg. gave, distributed, sold, administered, transported or offered to do so, or did any act preparatory to this), a dangerous drug (listed in schedule 1 or 2 or 2A).

 

[Braveheart81]

I just fail to see why several people here put up such a staunch defence of GeeRob (primarily yourself BH and baabaa, no offence to either of you guys, I just can't see what you see in her journalistically).

I just don't believe that on the biggest rugby story in Australia last year she was given editorial control to take whatever angle she wanted on the story with no direction from her editor.

I also have no issue with journalists in any area citing unnamed sources. It is part and parcel of journalism.

It seems to me a major case of shooting the messenger.

 

[barbarian]

I just stuck up for her because the backlash here got remarkably personal. In a story that is still very, very murky I didn't think that was a great way to go about breaking it all down. And still don't.

 

[redveincheese]

Senior Counsel Google gives me this

I see, so in this instance we may be looking at "any act preparatory to this" if in fact there is no evidence of possession.
Just speculating here but if this evidence has come from conversations or the like from phone intercepts(which has also been reported) I would imagine it would be far more difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt than being caught in possession of said dangerous drug.
Regardless, this seems like it will be a drawn out process and has surely ended many athletes immediate careers. The CCC had better hope their confidence in their evidence is absolute and beyond challenge, because if it is not and they fail in getting a conviction then surely they will face ramifications from the accused in the civil court system.

 

[Scrubber2050]

It has been said that justice is available to those who can afford it.

Not in terms of corrupting the judiciary, but in terms of having sufficient resources to engage the necessary legal horsepower for long enough to wage a sustained campaign on all fronts to beat the rap - all the way to the High Court if necessary.

"The Castle"

 

[Pfitzy]

I agree with you on this point.

Funnily enough, she was one of the ones supporting and defending someone who was found guilty of an offence (while not a crime, something I believe could have been said to have "brought the game into disrepute") and yet is very quick to make statements such as last night about others.

I guess it depends on what colour they wear.

Or maybe it actually depends on the circumstances in each instance.

Keep in mind that the journos are actually a shitload closer to the truth than a lot of us. They put their own slant on it, but it is very unlikely that any journo in this country would go with complete libel because lawsuits don't tend to end well for anyone in that situation, and newspapers don't like to be throwing their nosediving profits away on out of court settlements.

It is no surprise - in fact its completely understandable - that a lot of the people carrying pitchforks in the last 20 posts or so are from north of the border as far as GeeRob goes.

But don't let your rhetoric close your mind to other possibilities.

 

[Ash]

Keep in mind that the journos are actually a shitload closer to the truth than a lot of us.

I think they're a shitload closed to their editorial slant than the truth. Go read the Daily Telegraph to get an idea on what I mean.

Of course, different journos from different newspapers took differing sides of the stories. If there's one thing you could say about the whole affair, it's that Beale's management team did a great job of leaking to certain journos from both Fairfax and News to keep his side in the paper.

They put their own slant on it, but it is very unlikely that any journo in this country would go with complete libel because lawsuits don't tend to end well for anyone in that situation, and newspapers don't like to be throwing their nosediving profits away on out of court settlements.

I think you'll find that they are very careful with how they phrase things, with lots of weasel words. Additoinally, it would both be very expensive, and difficult, for an average person to sue a newspaper for libel. It's normally companies or people with a higher net worth that more commonly persue that path (and you can bet that newspapers are well aware of that).

 

[BDA]

One thing that's worth noting at this point is the effect this issue will have on Hunt's test prospects.

Even if the Reds give Hunt the go ahead to return to the squad pending resolution of the prosecution, you wouldn't imagine selectors there is a hope in hell of the selectors picking Hunt to represent our country at the world cup in the circumstances.

 

[qwerty51]

I don't think that will matter. He's missed 2 games now (and possibly more) of vital experience, playing wise he won't might it.

 

[Scrubber2050]

One thing about all this is rather confusing. I realize we have scant information in regards to the details here, however it is being reported that Khunt was charged/summonsed in relation to the supply of a dangerous drug. It is also being reported that some of the others implicated have been charged with possession as well.
Now, can someone with legal knowledge explain to me how someone can be charged with supply without actually possessing any of the substance they have been accused of supplying. Surely a charge of supply must accompany a charge of possession.

Not necessarily. generally, normally a person is charged with possession.
Then the Police "lean" hard on that guy to give up where he sourced it from. Most blokes are not staunch and roll over believing the Police that it will go easier on him because of cooperation. Sometimes that happens but most informed persons in the legal fraternity wouldn't trust a police officer or Police Prosecutions as far as you could throw Will Skelton.
The original bloke cooperates and gives evidence against the supplier.

 

[Scrubber2050]

One thing that's worth noting at this point is the effect this issue will have on Hunt's test prospects.

Even if the Reds give Hunt the go ahead to return to the squad pending resolution of the prosecution, you wouldn't imagine selectors would there is a hope in hell of the selectors picking Hunt to represent our country at the world cup in the circumstances.

TGH - the bloke has done nothing to excite me in his couple of games for the Reds, He doesn't even look promising at this stage.

Just on playing abilkity and performance to date he would have virtually no chance of making our RWC squad,

Now, rightfully or wrongly (time will tell) his chances are nigh on impossible. Turner has a much better chance

 

[barbarian]

One thing that's worth noting at this point is the effect this issue will have on Hunt's test prospects.

Even if the Reds give Hunt the go ahead to return to the squad pending resolution of the prosecution, you wouldn't imagine selectors would there is a hope in hell of the selectors picking Hunt to represent our country at the world cup in the circumstances.

Cheika has shown in the past he has little regard for off-field issues at the selection table, so I'd be surprised if he overlooks him if his form is good.
.

 

[BDA]

Well we really haven't seen hardly anything from him yet Scrubber. He played one game a 5/8, a position he is not familiar with.

If he does return, it might be that he's playing the house down towards the end of the season. Nevertheless, it's hard to see him getting selected even if he was one of the form outside backs in the competition.

 

[BDA]

Cheika has shown in the past he has little regard for off-field issues at the selection table, so I'd be surprised if he overlooks him if his form is good.

I'd like to think that's true, although I would think the ARU would have a few things to say about that. It would be very easy for the ARU to avoid a lot of controversy by not selecting Hunt. I'm probably jumping the gun talking about the possibility of test selection but its interesting to hypothesise

 

[Braveheart81]

If he's played enough Super Rugby to have the sort of form to justify selection in the RWC squad you'd imagine he would be acceptable to the ARU and would be available for selection.

If his first court date is late next week you'd imagine he won't be available for selection in round 4 but if things don't sound too terminal for his sporting career, they might decide he can rejoin the team after that.

My bet is he'll either be back with the Reds for round 5 or we won't see him this season.