News Jack De Bellend Megathread

[BDPScarface]

Preempting a bit... but to me, it seems logical that if there's no verdict, the DPP should drop the case. It's taken to long to this point, and there are other real matters that hinge on the outcome, such as the no-fault standdown... But nothing ever surprises me anymore.

 

[BDPScarface]

Jury has to re-consider the facts, and try come to a conclusion.

If that does not eventuate, the judge can ever make a decision himself, OR, consider the jury hung and go through the trial process again with a new trial.

My understanding it only goes to trial again if the DPP chooses to attempt to do so, it's not automatic. There are significant considerations and consequences for them to do so.

 

[Brendan7]

My understanding it only goes to trial again if the DPP chooses to attempt to do so, it's not automatic. There are significant considerations and consequences for them to do so.

Usually only goes to a new trial if new evidence comes up, plenty of so called "hung jury's" haven't gone back to trial. Usually they like more compelling evidence if the original trial ended in a hung verdict. My brother is a lawyer he's been involved in a couple of these so called hung juries.

 

[Dawgfather]

Jury has to re-consider the facts, and try come to a conclusion.

If that does not eventuate, the judge can ever make a decision himself, OR, consider the jury hung and go through the trial process again with a new trial.

Nope, if the jury are not unanimous, the judge is unable to make a decision himself.

The most the judge can do is allow the jury to return an 11-1 verdict (if it would result in an outcome).

For anyone hoping for the prosecutor to give up (assuming the jury can't reach a verdict this time round), you should not hold high hopes.

In NSW, if the DPP can't get a verdict in the first trial, they are almost guaranteed to go for a second trial. This could mean Debelin can no longer afford a decent barrister, and will not be represented as well in front of the second jury.

 

[Dawgfather]

My understanding it only goes to trial again if the DPP chooses to attempt to do so, it's not automatic. There are significant considerations and consequences for them to do so.

The DPP almost definitely won't give up after the first trial. Almost guaranteed they will end up with a second trial.

 

[dekepefc]

Preempting a bit... but to me, it seems logical that if there's no verdict, the DPP should drop the case. It's taken to long to this point, and there are other real matters that hinge on the outcome, such as the no-fault standdown... But nothing ever surprises me anymore.

They will likely go for another trial before making that decision.. unless the victim doesn't want to go through it again

 

[dekepefc]

Usually only goes to a new trial if new evidence comes up, plenty of so called "hung jury's" haven't gone back to trial. Usually they like more compelling evidence if the original trial ended in a hung verdict. My brother is a lawyer he's been involved in a couple of these so called hung juries.

Ask your brother again.. I think you'll find you're wrong

 

[Dawgfather]

Usually only goes to a new trial if new evidence comes up, plenty of so called "hung jury's" haven't gone back to trial. Usually they like more compelling evidence if the original trial ended in a hung verdict. My brother is a lawyer he's been involved in a couple of these so called hung juries.

Not for a high profile sexual assault case. in NSW the DPP is almost guaranteed to go for another second trial. They won't want to look like they're going soft on a sexual assault charge.

 

[Brendan7]

Not for a high profile sexual assault case. in NSW the DPP is almost guaranteed to go for another second trial. They won't want to look like they're going soft on a sexual assault charge.

Quite possibly but I’m not sure any jury will find it differently. I’ll just be happy this thing is OVER it’s been tedious to all parties. No one even knows who is telling what nowadays seems a very flimsy case to be honest.

 

[Brendan7]

Ask your brother again.. I think you'll find you're wrong

I’ll take your word for it not fussed either way as this doesn’t involve a dogs player

 

[Dawgfather]

Quite possibly but I’m not sure any jury will find it differently. I’ll just be happy this thing is OVER it’s been tedious to all parties. No one even knows who is telling what nowadays seems a very flimsy case to be honest.

I agree, I think it's a flimsy case, but unfortunately the way the system works means the DPP is almost guaranteed to ask for a second trial if the jury can't find a unanimous verdict.

 

[MoNkEy]

Jury discharged.

The saga continues.

 

[Dawgfather]

Jury discharged.

The saga continues.

DPP will definitely go for a second trial.

Poor Debelin is going to have go through months or possibly a year or more of drawn out legal processes just to have another jury likely find that there is not evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that he did anything he is charged with. Same for his co-accused.

 

[MoNkEy]

DPP will definitely go for a second trial.

Imagine the legal costs.

Not to mention the mental anguish.

 

[Dawgfather]

Imagine the legal costs.

Not to mention the mental anguish.

I can tell you his legal costs are already in excess of $200k.

 

[Dawgfather]

I can tell you his legal costs are already in excess of $200k.

Actually closer to the vicinity of $300-$400k.

And that is before the second trial (likely) starts.

His current barrister charges $11k per day.

 

[MoNkEy]

His current barrister charges $11k per day.

I'm clearly in the wrong job.

 

[BDPScarface]

I actually think there will not be a retrial. I think the fact that it as established that the actions of an element of law enforcement, as the DPP is, the police officers involved, had handled the evidence improperly, the DPP will abandon this one.

Does anyone know what the time frame is from here-in? Am I right that the DPP now have to decide whether to drop the charges, as they still stand, or refer the matter to the court again for a retrial? How quickly do they normally make those decisions?

OK, I found this from Foxsports:



A second trial will now be set unless the prosecutor opts to drop the charges.

De Belin jury is being discharged. They told Judge Andrew Haesler they CANNOT come to a majority 11-1 decision.
— Steve Zemek (@stevezemek) November 30, 2020

Jury has formally been discharged in the Jack de Belin trial. Either there will be another trial or DPP could elect to drop charges. Don't know which.
— Steve Zemek (@stevezemek) November 30, 2020

The DPP now has a decision on whether to proceed with another trial. Earliest possible trial in Wollongong District Court is AUGUST NEXT YEAR. Could move a second trial to Sydney. Matter is being mentioned on Wednesday. We'll know more then.
— Steve Zemek (@stevezemek) November 30, 2020

 

[gbrussell]

The DPP almost definitely won't give up after the first trial. Almost guaranteed they will end up with a second trial.

The one jury i was part of was a child sexual assault case in 2013. After we made our not guilty verdict which took about 10 minutes the court officer told us it was a re-trial as the original jury could not reach a verdict. In De Berlin's case I doubt they could select many jurors who would not be aware of such a high profile case.

 

[Dawgfather]

The one jury i was part of was a child sexual assault case in 2013. After we made our not guilty verdict which took about 10 minutes the court officer told us it was a re-trial as the original jury could not reach a verdict. In De Berlin's case I doubt they could select many jurors who would not be aware of such a high profile case.

Indeed this will be the main issue if a second trial goes ahead. It will be difficult to find jury members who were not aware of the first trial.

It was possible in the George Pell case because of the suppression order on the reporting of the first trial.