Carlton’s finals hopes have received a huge boost after Captain Patrick Cripps had his two-match suspension overturned at the AFL Tribunal Appeals Board.
Key points:
Carlton star Patrick Cripps has had his suspension overturned
Cripps is free to play against Melbourne on Saturday
Appeals Board chairperson Murray Kellam said the findings of the initial hearing on Tuesday were unreasonable
Cripps was unsuccessful in overturning a rough conduct charge at the AFL Tribunal on Tuesday night, and his hearing at the Appeals Board on Thursday night loomed as his final hope of having his two-match suspension squashed.
The 27-year-old’s airborne collision, which left Brisbane’s Callum Ah Chee with concussion, was graded as careless, high impact and high contact.
Christopher Townshend QC, acting for Cripps, argued that there was a “denial of natural justice” because AFL Court chairman Jeff Gleeson failed to give directions to the jury on Tuesday night before they retired to consider their verdict.
Townshend said Gleeson himself had created confusion by effectively stating Cripps’ action was a bump.
“In the absence of even Mr Cripps being asked if he wanted to bump his opponent … the chairperson later postures, ‘Can you bump and contest at the same time?'” Townshend said.
“(The jury was told to consider a) thesis that the chairperson has suggested rather than what the evidence has shown.
“A fair examination of the whole of the evidence could not support clear satisfaction that the player was doing something other than an incident where both players had eyes for the ball, and both players contested the ball, as found by the Tribunal.
“We say for the foregoing reasons the Tribunal’s decision is infected by error and so unreasonable that it requires reversing.”
AFL counsel Nicholas Pane said a player could contest with his eyes on the ball but still be in the action of bumping.
Chair Murray Kellam and jurors Richard Loveridge and Stephen Jurica deliberated for one hour and 45 minutes before deciding in favor of Cripps.
It means Cripps is free to play in crunch games against Melbourne and Collingwood in the final two rounds.
Currently seventh on the ladder with a 12-8 record, the Blues will need to win one of the two matches to guarantee the club’s first finals spot since 2013.
If Carlton lose both matches, they will need to rely on other results in order to stay inside the top eight.
Australia’s highest court has allowed a man found guilty of murdering his wife by pushing her wheelchair into a pond to appeal against his conviction.
Key points:
The High Court has allowed Peter Dansie a chance to overturn his murder conviction
Helen Dansie drowned in an Adelaide pond in 2017
The appeal will be heard in SA Supreme Court
Peter Rex Dansie, 73, was sentenced to life in prison for killing his wife, Helen Dansie, in Adelaide’s southern parklands.
Mrs Dansie drowned in a pond in Veale Gardens in April 2017.
Dansie lost a bid to appeal his conviction in South Australia’s Court of Criminal Appeal two years ago.
Today, two High Court judges dismissed Dansie’s application to appeal, but Justice Kevin Nicholson said he would have quashed the conviction as the evidence did not rule out the possibility that Mrs Dansie might have accidentally drowned.
“It would be dangerous in all the circumstances to allow the verdict of guilty of murder to stand,” Justice Nicholson said.
The High Court then granted Dansie’s application for special leave to appeal the majority decision of South Australia’s appeal court.
Helen Dansie drowned in a pond at Veale Gardens in Adelaide in 2017.(Supplied: SA Police)
The High Court unanimously found South Australia’s Court of Criminal Appeal misapplied the law and has allowed Dansie to appeal against his conviction.
The matter will be remitted to the South Australian Supreme Court for rehearing.
In allowing the appeal, the High Court said the Supreme Court needed “more than mere satisfaction” to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
“The appellant argues that the majority (of the Court of Criminal Appeal) misinterpreted and misapplied the approach required to be taken,” the judgment said.
“The appellant’s argument is well founded.
“The appeal must be allowed.
“What each member of the Court of Criminal Appeal needed to do in order to apply the test … was to ask whether he was independently satisfied as a result of his own assessment of the whole of the evidence added at the trial that the only rational inference available on that evidence was that the appellant deliberately pushed the wheelchair into the pond with intent to drown his wife.”
Police divers searching evidence in the pond at Veale Gardens in 2017.(Supplied: ABC News)
Mrs Dansie’s son Grant said he was “massively disappointed” the appeal had been granted.
“It’s like a never-ending story,” he said.
Dansie previously lost appeal
When Dansie was sentenced to a non-parole period of 25 years two years ago, Justice David Lovell said Mrs Dansie’s murder was the “ultimate act of domestic violence” and described it as an “evil and despicable act”.
“This was a chilling, planned murder of a person whose only mistake was to trust you,” he said.
During the trial, prosecutors alleged Dansie murdered his wife because he regarded her as a cost burden.
Mrs Dansie, a former microbiologist, suffered a stroke in the 1990s that left her with long-term disabilities.
The court at the time heard she was on an indexed pension for life, a large portion of which Mr Dansie was entitled to as her full-time carer.
Justice Lovell established a “dual motive” for the murder—a deterioration in Dansie’s feelings for his wife and an interest in pursuing a sexual relationship with another woman overseas.
The union representing Victoria Police is calling on the state government to overhaul sentencing law for serious offenses to bring punishments in line with community expectations.
Key points:
Warrnambool man Steven John Cleary, 50, was sentenced last month for attacking two police officers with a baseball bat
The Victorian Police Association and Victoria Police Chief Commissioner Shane Patton say the sentence was “inadequate”
The Victorian Government says it will look at the outcome of the Warrnambool case as part of sentencing law reviews
The Office of Public Prosecutions yesterday announced it would not appeal against a sentence imposed last month for a man who viciously attacked two Warrnambool police officers.
Steven John Cleary, 50, was sentenced in the County Court to three years and two months in jail, with a non-parole period of one year and 10 months, for the brutal assault.
The Warrnambool man, who heard the court heard delusions including that he was the king of Australia and Norway, admitted to using a metal baseball bat to repeatedly strike an officer to the head while he was on the ground.
Victoria Police Chief Commissioner Shane Patton had requested a submission be prepared for the Director of Public Prosecutions requesting an appeal after the “inadequate” sentence.
‘Broken’ system
Police Association Victoria secretary Wayne Gatt said the case represented a “dire fault” within the legal system that needed to be addressed.
Wayne Gatt says the government must ensure sentencing is in line with community expectations. (abcnews)
“Governments hold the responsibility of making sure the outcomes from courts, that laws the courts must consider when sentencing, actually deliver the outcomes and deliver community expectations,” he said.
“If that’s not happening, it points to a system that is broken. It points to a system that requires reform.”
A Victorian Government spokesperson said in a statement work was under way to “review and modernize” Victoria’s sentencing laws.
The spokesperson said the Attorney-General had asked the Department of Justice and Community Safety to look at the outcome of the case as part of that work.
Police body-worn camera vision of the assault was shown to the court.(Supplied: County Court of Victoria)
“This work will occur in consultation with police and other emergency services in addition to victims’ groups and others,” the statement said.
Mr Gatt said it was not just an issue for police officers seriously assaulted at work, but for all victims of serious crime.
“That victim of crime could be you, it could be me, it could be anyone in our community,” he said.
“The system needs to change for all.”
Officers traumatized
Police body camera footage played to the court showed two police officers attempting to stop a 15-year-old on the street who was not wearing a mask, which was mandated at the time.
The boy contacted Cleary via walkie-talkie and he appeared moments later and rushed forward at the officers.
He continued the frenzied attack despite attempts to restrain him using a taser.
Clearly attacked the officers with a metal baseball bat covered in a nylon sheath.(Supplied: County Court of Victoria)
One of the victims, Senior Constable Rowan Baldam, told the court he thought he was going to die.
He said he and his colleague had considered leaving their dream job.
Defense lawyer Jonathan Barrera told the court Cleary had severe impaired mental functioning and experienced delusions, that were “active at the time of offending.”
Clearly you have served 300 days in custody since the attack, so you will be eligible for parole in a little more than a year.
No appeal lodged
The Office of Public Prosecutions (OPP) released a statement explaining its decision not to appeal the sentence.
“In light of all the relevant sentencing considerations, there is no reasonable prosect that the Court of Appeal would consider the sentence to be manifestly inadequate,” the statement said.
“Those sentencing considerations include the application of the Verdins principles, the utilitarian value of the plea of guilty and the absence of any prior convictions.”
Clearly had pleaded guilty to assaulting an emergency worker on duty and intentionally causing injury.
The court heard Clearly repeatedly refused to follow police instructions.(Supplied: County Court of Victoria )
sentencing law
Sentencing is dictated by various legal principles found in the 600-page Sentencing Act and case law.
Verdins case law states mental impairment can reduce the offender’s moral culpability for the offense and affect the weight given to just punishment, denunciation and deterrence as purposes of sentencing.
It also justifies a less severe sentence where there is a serious risk of imprisonment could have a significant adverse effect on the offender’s mental health.
Clearly he was sentenced in the County Court of Victoria. (ABC News: Patrick Rocca)
Judges are required to weigh up all factors including the gravity of the crime, the harm to the victims, the offender’s individual circumstances including their prior convictions and prospects of rehabilitation.
Mr Gatt said deterrence had become a “peripheral issue” when it should be a “fundamental principle” in sentencing for serious offences.
He said “any right-minded Victorian” could see Cleary’s sentence did not fit the crime, highlighting a need to change sentencing law.
“[The] advice from the OPP … represents a dire fault within our legal system, not within the OPP,” he said.
“This has to change, but it is beyond the role of the OPP to do that.
