- Aug 6, 2021
- 9,483
- 26,470
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
Yep, well summarised.True, and Carl's counsel will probably make that point in court.
In reply, counsel for the club will likely point to the following course of events:
1. Carl was engaged as a player with a known drug problem, as he acknowledges in the statement of claim.
2. Sometime in the middle of 2009, Carl and the 3 club officials met to discuss his domestic and parenting situation. Unless there are contemporaneous notes of that meeting, what was said at that meeting is difficult to substantiate, but suffice to say accounts of what transpired differs between Carl and the 3 officials. Ms Rotumah was not present, and her understanding of what occurred derives from what Carl told her, and as such her evidence is hearsay and will likely be deemed as such by the court.
3. The appropriateness of the meeting is open to criticism, eg the lack of a support person for Carl. However a failure of process does not necessarily constitute unlawful discrimination.
4. Whatever was said at the meeting, Carl apparently suffered no detriment at that time in terms of his career - the pregnancy was not terminated, and he went on to play 17 games for the club the following year (2010).
5. Carl was delisted at the end of 2010. He has twice publicly stated his career at Hawthorn ended because of his own lack of professionalism. He has publicly commended the club and its officials for the support he was provided with, including post-football employment. It is possible the club will call his subsequent employer Michael Cooke to provide witness evidence. Carl's lack of professionalism seems to be well-known in football circles.
6. Notwithstanding his claim to personal and economic harm from the events in 2009, Carl chose to take his family to a club function in 2019. The family included child "LP", who from media comments he made in 2011, would appear to be the son borne of the pregnancy the club officials requested be aborted. The credibility of this course of events is obviously open to question.
7. With no context, but apparently in public view, Clarkson pins a 9-10 year old child against a wall with his forearm. Again, the credibility of this incident is open to question.
I just hope Leon Zwier has properly briefed his client, but the holes in the statement of claim don't lead me to optimism.
I really don't understand Zwier's strategy of alluding to serious incidents, like LP allegedly getting assaulted by Clarko, but then failing to provide any specific details around how it came about. It seems to do his client a disservice because when you make serious allegations with this level of vagueness it discredits your claim.
Last edited: