Player in legal action against the AFL and Essendon - Hal Hunter

[Cylon7]

No idea, the penalites should be noted on the Order with the terms and conditions.

Interesting that you should say that.
The Australian Press Council advised that they couldn't advise whether or not it was illegal for a body to cover up a crime by issuing a suppression order. They said they couldn't give legal advice.

Can you tell me whether it is possible for a story to be suppressed by an organisation to hide a crime?
It's a simple question but we can't seem to get a straight answer.

 

[Rhayader]

Suppression orders don't cross state boundaries. I assume Hunter's name was temporarily suppressed while a Victorian court considered the suppression application, but that has no bearing on reporting of suppressed information (including his name) interstate. As long as that interstate media organisation doesn't publish/broadcast in Victoria - basically they can't put it on the web so it can be seen by people in Victoria - they have no dramas. No need for the AFL to leak it - it's in the court docs! It's just prevented from being reported in the jurisdiction.

Of course, suppression orders predate the internet, so once it is reported on TV in Adelaide, it starts to hit the web, and goes everywhere, totally defeating the purpose of the exercise. Technically, this site - and anyone who posted the name - was in breach of the suppression in Victoria and could be held to account (I guess contempt charges?), but it's unlikely (especially in this case, given the suppression application was rejected).

Still, the law is very out of date when it comes to these situations. It's basically harks back to a time when everyone got their information from the big media organisations. Funny thing is, suppressed information is still often still heard in open court. So *technically* everyone in the state could sit in the room (if they could fit) and hear it all, but they aren't allowed to get the information from the newspaper, radio or TV news.

As to whether a "story" can be suppressed by an organisation to hide a crime - the short answer is yes, but only if a court agrees to suppress it. Any party - even the AFL! -can apply for suppression orders, and in some cases interested parties - including the media - can argue against them being issued. But it's entirely the decision for the court, and the applicant basically has to convince the court why it is needed.

 

[coryne]

Pity Richmond, not sure why, we are bigger, wealthier and better than your own team, not too mention in GF's head to head it's 4 to us 2 to you, it's about time for you to save the pity for the Bluebaggers isn't it?

And how has the last 30 years been ???

 

[morgoth]

So basically all Hunter is doing is trying to get Essendon to tell him what they injected him with? Would seem like a reasonable request although you would think Dank would be a party to the action as he claims he has the records.

I am sure all the players would like to know.

 

[Reality rules]

So basically all Hunter is doing is trying to get Essendon to tell him what they injected him with? Would seem like a reasonable request although you would think Dank would be a party to the action as he claims he has the records.

I am sure all the players would like to know.

Dank was a employee of EFC, hence the club and AFL for discovery.

 

[corio bay]

While Hunter's application for a pseudonym was rejected by the Victorian Supreme Court on Wednesday, sources said the player intends to continue with legal action that would require Essendon and the AFL to hand over documents relating to the 2012 injection regime.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...ess-on-with-legal-action-20150325-1m79hk.html

seems like he is going ahead with the court action

 

[Reality rules]

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...ess-on-with-legal-action-20150325-1m79hk.html

seems like he is going ahead with the court action

The Tribunal's over now. Game on!!!!!

 

[thegerman]

Yeah it has lost some of its luster, but at least the end is nigh.

To be honest it has helped fill in the long off season, not sure what I would do without some old druggie getting himself in trouble with young girls, a dwarf being set on fire or a good drug scandal, question is which team is going to step up to the plate next year to keep us all entertained?

The problem is, this isn't going to stop here. Players will sue, pushing this out further unfortunately

 

[Albert Ross]

The maximum payment under a Common law claim for personal injury is about $500k, but the average closer to $80k ... and that is for people who are seriously incapacitated not simply trying to make a pain and suffering case on a hypothetical. And the league and EFC will have insurance for workcover type claims anyway.

40 players getting $50k each, and that bill being handled to the insurers won't be sinking anyone.

 

[telsor]

a) That's the news business. The media aren't on his side really. They're on the side of their shareholders.
b) Are the AFL suing anyone? The article states the judge's reasons for rejecting the order. This is about legal action, not what is best for the AFL and its clubs and players.

With the AFL operating AFL media, are they not a news business?

 

[southwest bomber]

While I understand why Hunter would want to know what he was given, I'm not sure how a court case can do what a government organisation couldn't?

Assuming Essendon stick to the line of having no records, what are the courts options?
Presumably a fine and a payout?

 

[Armchair Critic]

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...ess-on-with-legal-action-20150325-1m79hk.html

seems like he is going ahead with the court action

The action appears as if it is only going to be against the club if needed , this application only has to do with discovery of documents/records that Essendon/AFL have in relation to the program if I am reading that correctly.

Edit: It does state potentially other parties but it sounds like the club is first in line

 

[PetterdHoisted]

Never happen.

The AFL would let the club die and then buy it out at the last second and run it from AFL House.

That would only leave Collingwood as a truly BIG independent Melbourne club.

You reckon? To be honest I don't what the role/power of Edelsten at the Swans, Elliot at Carlton etc. was, but Little's bail out cash would put him in a similar situation at EFC. AFL would be very happy I'd have thought.

 

[Reality rules]

The maximum payment under a Common law claim for personal injury is about $500k, but the average closer to $80k ... and that is for people who are seriously incapacitated not simply trying to make a pain and suffering case on a hypothetical. And the league and EFC will have insurance for workcover type claims anyway.

40 players getting $50k each, and that bill being handled to the insurers won't be sinking anyone.

Either way Albert, sounds like a death of a 1000 cuts for EFC. Be no hiding for the club here.

 

[Rhayader]

While I understand why Hunter would want to know what he was given, I'm not sure how a court case can do what a government organisation couldn't?

Assuming Essendon stick to the line of having no records, what are the courts options?
Presumably a fine and a payout?

If a court orders/requests handover of all records relating to what substances he was administered, the club/AFL can't really ignore it (which they technically could be doing now of players' requests, if said information exists). If the club/AFL says "we don't have any", that's pretty good ammunition for his actual lawsuit against both organisations (particularly the club). I'm presuming the aim here is to get a payout, either way.

 

[Albert Ross]

While I understand why Hunter would want to know what he was given, I'm not sure how a court case can do what a government organisation couldn't?

Assuming Essendon stick to the line of having no records, what are the courts options?
Presumably a fine and a payout?

Unlike the Tribunal, witnesses can be subpoenaed to this case if it goes ahead and placed under oath.

 

[JP2]

While I understand why Hunter would want to know what he was given, I'm not sure how a court case can do what a government organisation couldn't?

Assuming Essendon stick to the line of having no records, what are the courts options?
Presumably a fine and a payout?

Well I'd basically view it as a wedging tactic - that is, one that forces Essendon into a lose / lose dilemma. For example, if Essendon have the records, and the court can mandate the club to release them, Hunter and his lawyers can start poring through them and consult with medical experts about how safe the injection regime / dosages / substances etc. really were. TB4 will be a sideshow in this case: OHS claims will be far more about the experimental nature of the program, or the use of improperly tested substances rather than the mere use of something that happens to have been proscribed by ASADA. This is where AOD, and all the other substances that have conveniently been forgotten in the TB4 shitstorm, could really come back to bite the club. Quibbling over the S0 / S2 status of particular substances won't help the club if they demonstrably used them in an improper manner.

Alternatively, the club can officially state that they don't have records, and Hunter can choose to prosecute them from this angle. I think "my employer injected me for months with substances they admit to be unknown" would be a pretty good grounds for suing the club. So basically Hunter is forcing the club to play their hand in a way that ASADA never could. All the ASADA case turns on is whether that organisation has been able to gather enough evidence to say that TB4 was used at the club - EFC have so far been permitted to stay quiet and to leave the onus of proof entirely with ASADA. When they are being litigated against, this kind of silence won't help them, because they will be forced to say what they do or not know about the program: silence, or refusal to co-operate, will be used against them. With that in mind, I'd say Hunter is using this suit as a prelude to further action: once the EFC have been forced to lay the cards on the table, it will be easier for him to decide exactly what kind of action to take, and what exactly the club might be culpable for.

 

[Michael Quinn]

Watch this 'not' go to court.

And watch who makes sure of that outcome.

 

[Reality rules]

Well I'd basically view it as a wedging tactic - that is, one that forces Essendon into a lose / lose dilemma. For example, if Essendon have the records, and the court can mandate the club to release them, Hunter and his lawyers can start poring through them and consult with medical experts about how safe the injection regime / dosages / substances etc. really were. TB4 will be a sideshow in this case: OHS claims will be far more about the experimental nature of the program, or the use of improperly tested substances rather than the mere use of something that happens to have been proscribed by ASADA. This is where AOD, and all the other substances that have conveniently been forgotten in the TB4 shitstorm, could really come back to bite the club. Quibbling over the S0 / S2 status of particular substances won't help the club if they demonstrably used them in an improper manner.

Alternatively, the club can officially state that they don't have records, and Hunter can choose to prosecute them from this angle. I think "my employer injected me for months with substances they admit to be unknown" would be a pretty good grounds for suing the club. So basically Hunter is forcing the club to play their hand in a way that ASADA never could. All the ASADA case turns on is whether that organisation has been able to gather enough evidence to say that TB4 was used at the club - EFC have so far been permitted to stay quiet and to leave the onus of proof entirely with ASADA. When they are being litigated against, this kind of silence won't help them, because they will be forced to say what they do or not know about the program: silence, or refusal to co-operate, will be used against them. With that in mind, I'd say Hunter is using this suit as a prelude to further action: once the EFC have been forced to lay the cards on the table, it will be easier for him to decide exactly what kind of action to take, and what exactly the club might be culpable for.

So in reality, it's not the end, but the beginning of the end.

 

[Reality rules]

Watch this 'not' go to court.

And watch who makes sure of that outcome.

I dunno, it will make one almighty 'test' case.

 

[Big Sim]

That anybody would think the post you replied to was anything but satire.

Oh hang on...





Ahhhh HTB...

Satire hey? Well the joke must be on me now then hey?

I guess when I have 12000 posts up I too will be able to tell the difference between a ****wit and somebody satirising a ****wit, oh wise one.

 

[southwest bomber]

That

If a court orders/requests handover of all records relating to what substances he was administered, the club/AFL can't really ignore it (which they technically could be doing now of players' requests, if said information exists). If the club/AFL says "we don't have any", that's pretty good ammunition for his actual lawsuit against both organisations (particularly the club). I'm presuming the aim here is to get a payout, either way.

That was my thinking.

Smart move by Hal, really.

 

[southwest bomber]

Well I'd basically view it as a wedging tactic - that is, one that forces Essendon into a lose / lose dilemma. For example, if Essendon have the records, and the court can mandate the club to release them, Hunter and his lawyers can start poring through them and consult with medical experts about how safe the injection regime / dosages / substances etc. really were. TB4 will be a sideshow in this case: OHS claims will be far more about the experimental nature of the program, or the use of improperly tested substances rather than the mere use of something that happens to have been proscribed by ASADA. This is where AOD, and all the other substances that have conveniently been forgotten in the TB4 shitstorm, could really come back to bite the club. Quibbling over the S0 / S2 status of particular substances won't help the club if they demonstrably used them in an improper manner.

Alternatively, the club can officially state that they don't have records, and Hunter can choose to prosecute them from this angle. I think "my employer injected me for months with substances they admit to be unknown" would be a pretty good grounds for suing the club. So basically Hunter is forcing the club to play their hand in a way that ASADA never could. All the ASADA case turns on is whether that organisation has been able to gather enough evidence to say that TB4 was used at the club - EFC have so far been permitted to stay quiet and to leave the onus of proof entirely with ASADA. When they are being litigated against, this kind of silence won't help them, because they will be forced to say what they do or not know about the program: silence, or refusal to co-operate, will be used against them. With that in mind, I'd say Hunter is using this suit as a prelude to further action: once the EFC have been forced to lay the cards on the table, it will be easier for him to decide exactly what kind of action to take, and what exactly the club might be culpable for.

I think your second point is the most likely.

 

[Michael Quinn]

I dunno, it will make one almighty 'test' case.

I'll be genuinely surprised if Hal Hunter is the one who finally gets this into a legitimate court room.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

Watch this 'not' go to court.

And watch who makes sure of that outcome.

We all know who will be signing the cheques.

It won't be surprising to anyone.

The AFL have wanted to control this and make it all go away, from start to finish, no matter how much Essendon fans convince themselves that it's all a conspiracy against them for no good reason.