News Hawthorn Racism Review - No player name speculation - opposition posters tread very carefully

[Strapping Young Lad]

Wrong. Hawks did what they had to do by the rules of the AFL.

Correct. For reference below, once the HFC had the report outlining serious allegations they were duty bound by the AFL’s protocol to hand over the report to the AFL integrity unit.

I will pin this post, as it seems to be a constant query.

 

[HedgeFund]

Hedgefund

If you are a lawyer, you would know that truth is a complete defence to defamation.
As long as you can prove that it is true.

If the complainants won’t give evidence, the ABC is going to be going to have big issues defending the case. I’ve been involved in legal cases like this, and they are always settled.

At least the ABC has plenty of money to pay any Judgment …

There’s an important but subtle nuance here.

ABC would only have to prove the fact that the allegation was made to the Egan inquiry, and contained in the report to the AFL, not the truth of the allegation itself.

Again, if it is true that the person alleged to the Egan inquiry that……and that Egan included that in his report to Hawthorn, which was then communicated to the AFL then the truth defence is triggered.

Doesn’t it mean it happened, but it means it was reported, and obviously the coaches/Burt deny what has been reported, but they can’t deny it wasn’t actually reported at all.

 

[Simon Crawshay]

Hedgefund

If you are a lawyer, you would know that truth is a complete defence to defamation.
As long as you can prove that it is true.

If the complainants won’t give evidence, the ABC is going to be going to have big issues defending the case. I’ve been involved in legal cases like this, and they are always settled.

At least the ABC has plenty of money to pay any Judgment …

ABC has plenty of OUR money to defend a case

Agree though the ABC is in all kinds of trouble here. If the complainants won't give evidence (especially Amy re the abortion claim) then they have basically published some extremely serious claims with no way for those claims to be verified/challenged by the accused.

You can say that they were merely publishing/reporting on the accusations but the fact is they were the ones that gave it air space.

What's unusual in this case is that I can see Clarko/Fagan/Burt getting a payout from the ABC and the familes getting a payout from the AFL. That's a lot of money that is going to be paid out!

 

[HedgeFund]

Hedgefund

If you are a lawyer, you would know that truth is a complete defence to defamation.
As long as you can prove that it is true.

If the complainants won’t give evidence, the ABC is going to be going to have big issues defending the case. I’ve been involved in legal cases like this, and they are always settled.

At least the ABC has plenty of money to pay any Judgment …

I certainly am.

People would do well to go back to 21/9 and read the article again.

At no stage does it say that these allegations are true or fact, to do so would be foolish in the extreme.

 

[Rhayader]

ABC has plenty of OUR money to defend a case

Agree though the ABC is in all kinds of trouble here. If the complainants won't give evidence (especially Amy re the abortion claim) then they have basically published some extremely serious claims with no way for those claims to be verified/challenged by the accused.

You can say that they were merely publishing/reporting on the accusations but the fact is they were the ones that gave it air space.

What's unusual in this case is that I can see Clarko/Fagan/Burt getting a payout from the ABC and the familes getting a payout from the AFL. That's a lot of money that is going to be paid out!

ABC lawyers would have gone through it with a fine-tooth comb before it was published.

It’s not bulletproof, of course, but they would have carefully assessed and managed the risks.

 

[Todman]

I see the allegations are fizzling out.

 

[HairyO]

I certainly am.

People would do well to go back to 21/9 and read the article again.

At no stage does it say that these allegations are true or fact, to do so would be foolish in the extreme.

The claims were incredibly inflammatory as shown by the howls of outrage everywhere with many immediately believing everything to be true.

And with some claiming that even just saying the coaches are innocent til proven guilty is racist.

Allowing 2 days for a right of reply was way too short and they went to print without even a "no comment".

They created the shit storm and had to know it would happen.

You dont get to open the can of worms then claim its not your can of worms.

 

[HedgeFund]

The claims were incredibly inflammatory as shown by the howls of outrage everywhere with many immediately believing everything to be true.

And with some claiming that even just saying the coaches are innocent til proven guilty is racist.

Allowing 2 days for a right of reply was way too short and they went to print without even a "no comment".

They created the s**t storm and had to know it would happen.

You dont get to open the can of worms then claim its not your can of worms.

Are you suggesting that without the ABC article being published, the AFL would have buried the report it received from Hawthorn?

 

[HairyO]

Are you suggesting that without the ABC article being published, the AFL would have buried the report it received from Hawthorn?

I doubt it. Eventually Hawthorn would have said something.

It was completely one sided. The AFL investigation allows both sides to speak their piece.

 

[HedgeFund]

I doubt it. Eventually Hawthorn would have said something.

It was completely one sided. The AFL investigation allows both sides to speak their piece.

I think you may be overlooking the fact that the Hawthorn FC had received the Egan Report and, believing they were ill equipped to deal with it further, notified the AFL and expected it to be taken further.

The ABC article was published after the AFL had sat on it for at least a week, and people involved in the inquiry contacted the ABC because they hadn’t heard anything. Apparently for more than a month.

Jackson then made all the relevant enquiries, obtained all the information he could, contacted / notified those against whom allegations were made, they chose not to comment, then he published.

I don’t see what point you’re making. What has he done wrong?

 

[HairyO]

I think you may be overlooking the fact that the Hawthorn FC had received the Egan Report and, believing they were ill equipped to deal with it further, notified the AFL and expected it to be taken further.

The ABC article was published after the AFL had sat on it for at least a week, and people involved in the inquiry contacted the ABC because they hadn’t heard anything. Apparently for more than a month.

Jackson then made all the relevant enquiries, obtained all the information he could, contacted / notified those against whom allegations were made, they chose not to comment, then he published.

I don’t see what point you’re making. What has he done wrong?

Just because the AFL didnt instantly jump up and down doeSnt mean they werent going to do something.

Perhaps if they had rushed they would have made the mess caused by the ABC look lightweight.

 

[Simon Crawshay]

I think you may be overlooking the fact that the Hawthorn FC had received the Egan Report and, believing they were ill equipped to deal with it further, notified the AFL and expected it to be taken further.

The ABC article was published after the AFL had sat on it for at least a week, and people involved in the inquiry contacted the ABC because they hadn’t heard anything. Apparently for more than a month.

Jackson then made all the relevant enquiries, obtained all the information he could, contacted / notified those against whom allegations were made, they chose not to comment, then he published.

I don’t see what point you’re making. What has he done wrong?

I am honestly curious Hedgefund if you could give me your legal viewpoint in regards to this current s..t storm.

Does this mean that a media outlet like the ABC can report that serious allegations have been made against individuals and as long as they always state "alleged" they are golden?

I know in judicial trials media outlets will report the names of the accused and what they are accused off but that's a legal trial and they would be covered by freedom of the press to report in legal matters of this regard.

But this was just an internal review of an organisation without any kind of legal jurisdiction at all (that only interviewed the claimants and not the accused).

Seems to me it would be like an internal review of the culture of a large organisation stated that the CEO had murdered the CFO on a work trip to Vegas and a paper ran with that naming the accused (without even interviewing the CEO).

I have to think all kinds of lines have been overstepped by the ABC by publishing these claims and naming the accused.

Have to be grounds to sue for libel I would have thought?

 

[Simon Crawshay]

The claims were incredibly inflammatory as shown by the howls of outrage everywhere with many immediately believing everything to be true.

And with some claiming that even just saying the coaches are innocent til proven guilty is racist.

Allowing 2 days for a right of reply was way too short and they went to print without even a "no comment".

They created the s**t storm and had to know it would happen.

You dont get to open the can of worms then claim its not your can of worms.

That 48 hours right of reply is an absolute joke.

Imagine out of the blue you were contacted by the ABC and told of what they were going to publish and asked for your response in 2 days time.

Anyone with half a brain is going to go straight to their lawyers and any lawyer worth their salt will tell their clients to say "no comment".

 

[Rhayader]

The claims were incredibly inflammatory as shown by the howls of outrage everywhere with many immediately believing everything to be true.

And with some claiming that even just saying the coaches are innocent til proven guilty is racist.

Allowing 2 days for a right of reply was way too short and they went to print without even a "no comment".

They created the s**t storm and had to know it would happen.

You dont get to open the can of worms then claim its not your can of worms.

I keep hearing that two days wasn’t enough. So how long would be? What’s the magic number that would satisfy you?

According to the ABC, they were contacted multiples times via multiple channels. When there was no response, they were contacted again and given more opportunity - and still nothing. No “no comment”. Not even a request for more time.

Correcting the Record - Media Centre - About the ABC

Information about the Australian Broadcasting Corporation including history, management, corporate reports, plans and submissions and the latest news from our media centre.

about.abc.net.au

 

[HedgeFund]

I am honestly curious Hedgefund if you could give me your legal viewpoint in regards to this current s..t storm.

Does this mean that a media outlet like the ABC can report that serious allegations have been made against individuals and as long as they always state "alleged" they are golden?

I know in judicial trials media outlets will report the names of the accused and what they are accused off but that's a legal trial and they would be covered by freedom of the press to report in legal matters of this regard.

But this was just an internal review of an organisation without any kind of legal jurisdiction at all (that only interviewed the claimants and not the accused).

Seems to me it would be like an internal review of the culture of a large organisation stated that the CEO had murdered the CFO on a work trip to Vegas and a paper ran with that naming the accused (without even interviewing the CEO).

I have to think all kinds of lines have been overstepped by the ABC by publishing these claims and naming the accused.

Have to be grounds to sue for libel I would have thought?

1. Yes - if one notes these are allegations (and that’s true) then that’s usually sufficient. Happens every day in the courts I appear in.

2. Public interest reporting is what this is. There’s considered a public interest underlying the subject matter.

3. If an internal review of a company considered there was sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case the CEO murdered the CFO, the it would be an alleged murder - which clearly is of public interest, and should be reported to the appropriate authorities (eg. Victoria police then OPP) who then investigate and prosecute if necessary. Very similar to what has ultimately occurred here.

 

[Rhayader]

Anyone with half a brain is going to go straight to their lawyers and any lawyer worth their salt will tell their clients to say "no comment".

This I agree with. So the story would have run exactly as it did when it did, with “no comment” added. No material difference to any legal risk or the ramifications.

 

[Simon Crawshay]

1. Yes - if one notes these are allegations (and that’s true) then that’s usually sufficient. Happens every day in the courts I appear in.

2. Public interest reporting is what this is. There’s considered a public interest underlying the subject matter.

3. If an internal review of a company considered there was sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case the CEO murdered the CFO, the it would be an alleged murder - which clearly is of public interest, and should be reported to the appropriate authorities (eg. Victoria police then OPP) who then investigate and prosecute if necessary. Very similar to what has ultimately occurred here.

Say for point 3 that the CEO was completely innocent and the internal review that said he was guilty of being the murderer was poorly run and in no way met the legal requirements for a prosecution wouldn't the media outlet that reported him a suspect for murder be up for libel?

That's my main point. The abortion allegation in particular is so serious it should have gone straight to the Cops/WorkCover for them to investigate and determine if there were grounds for prosecution. If they did and it was going to go to trial fair enough ABC go for it but that didn't happen.

The ABC totally bypassed all that and made themselves the legal system in essence. You don't handle these kinds of allegations via media reports and internal reviews.

Still time will tell but as I have said before I find the current media silence very telling.

 

[Mercy Seat]

This I agree with. So the story would have run exactly as it did when it did, with “no comment” added. No material difference to any legal risk or the ramifications.

Rarely do you see “no comment” though. It’s usually a vehement denial or nothing at all.

In any case both Clarko and Fagan deny they received the the accusations prior to print, and there is talk that they were sent to old email addresses and generic club contacts that didn’t pass on to them. Who knows if this is true or not.

Regardless, from a legal standpoint, ABC are covered here and it’s very common practice to send something out with a day or 2’s notice to avoid any legal injunctions.

 

[HedgeFund]

Say for point 3 that the CEO was completely innocent and the internal review that said he was guilty of being the murderer was poorly run and in no way met the legal requirements for a prosecution wouldn't the media outlet that reported him a suspect for murder be up for libel?

That's my main point. The abortion allegation in particular is so serious it should have gone straight to the Cops/WorkCover for them to investigate and determine if there were grounds for prosecution. If they did and it was going to go to trial fair enough ABC go for it but that didn't happen.

The ABC totally bypassed all that and made themselves the legal system in essence. You don't handle these kinds of allegations via media reports and internal reviews.

Still time will tell but as I have said before I find the current media silence very telling.

That’s a very artificial scenario you’re positing. The idea that an internal company review would arrive at a murder conclusion without earlier police intervention is simply fantastical. It simply wouldn’t happen in practice.

Let’s make it more realistic, a whistleblower claims fraud within the company and reports it to the ASIC.

The fact the fraud report is made it true. Whether or not the fraud actually exists remains to be seen.

The directors can’t simply seek to have the fact of the report being made “buried” as there’s public interest in people knowing that alleged company frauds are being investigated.

 

[HairyO]

This I agree with. So the story would have run exactly as it did when it did, with “no comment” added. No material difference to any legal risk or the ramifications.

But they would have actually responded.

The ABC took the tabloid approach.

 

[Rhayader]

But they would have actually responded.

The ABC took the tabloid approach.

Lol the tabloids aren’t giving two days to respond

 

[Rhayader]

In any case both Clarko and Fagan deny they received the the accusations prior to print, and there is talk that they were sent to old email addresses and generic club contacts that didn’t pass on to them. Who knows if this is true or not.

Did they? I thought they said they hadn’t seen the report, not that they hadn’t been contacted by the reporter. Unless I missed something (which is possible)…

But do you really think they are that hard to find? Many journos would have their mobile numbers. And even if not, if they didn’t get they message, they should be firing their managers and having a chat to their clubs’ media departments. Have a look at that ABC link I posted earlier to see what they say they did to get comment.

Also, that statement exists to refute those claims about old/generic emails that were being made publicly. Sure, the ABC could be lying about all of this, but I find that very hard to believe.

 

[Dragz]

I don't see why the ABC had to name names tbh.
"Senior Figures at the Hawthorn Football Club" would have covered things off i would have thought?

 

[Rhayader]

I don't see why the ABC had to name names tbh.
"Senior Figures at the Hawthorn Football Club" would have covered things off i would have thought?

That could well be defamatory to the people in senior positions at the club - it’s a small number - who weren’t named in the report.

 

[Crankyhawk]

I am overseas, Central America and the Caribbean, so I don’t know the details so of someone help me with what the “racism” accusations are that would be appreciated? I’ve read about the accusations of terminating a pregnancy and moving away from family but I haven’t read about the racism accusations, can some one help please.

More that some alleged practices (separation of player and family/ partners, some alleged comments made eg a remark that the players home was nice taken to mean that it was not what the coach had expected) these have taken as evidence of a process which affected First Nations players more than non First Nations due to their cultural preferences and background.

 

[Holy Rioli]

There is so much gray now I don't know what to think (and I know a lot more about the Ian and Amy situation but can't discuss it here).

As someone very informed about the Amy and Ian story, if I'm confused about everything, then I imagine this is exactly the result the AFL want so that they can sweep things under the rug.