Brett Stewart verdict: Not guilty

[Yossarian]

I'd suggest he is a lucky boy…

**Manly star Brett Stewart has been found not guilty of sexually assaulting a 17-year-old girl.**

A jury of five women and seven men returned verdicts of not guilty to one charge of sexual assault and two charges of indecent assault.

The allegations included that on March 6, 2009, the now 25-year-old Sea Eagles fullback digitally penetrated and tongue-kissed a 17-year-old girl outside his north Manly townhouse complex.

The jury in Stewart's trial, which included 10 days of evidence and submissions, had retired on Tuesday.

Judge Jonathan Williams had asked the jury to return with a unanimous verdict.

Supported in court on Wednesday by girlfriend Jaime Baker, his parents, family, friends and teammates, Stewart cried after the verdict was delivered.

Manly chairman Scott Penn was pleased the ordeal was over and said Stewart would be given all the time he needed to recover from the difficult period.

"As a club we all knew the type of quality person Brett Stewart is and from day one of the allegations there was an insistence that like every Australian citizen he should be allowed to have his day in court," Penn said in a statement.

"That has been a long time coming – particularly for his close knit family. They have been hurt by the allegations but believed in the justice system to deliver the right verdict and it has.

"We will give Brett and his partner Jamie Baker all the time they need to recover from the traumatic last year and a half.

"Since Brett Stewart arrived home from England and the successful 2009 World Club Challenge his life has been under intense scrutiny. Everyone at the Sea Eagles from the staff in the front office, the coaching staff, teammates, sponsors, members and supporters wish him well and a successful return from a long period out with injury to his famous number one jersey next season."

Stewart played only one game for the Sea Eagles in 2010.

 

[system]

In my belief it was all over at the point that is was one word against the others and the history of mental illness of the accuser was bought up. Like it or not that and the bias against a father with the history he has meant there was little chance of conviction.

It would have been useful if the Police had taken a blood alcohol level on Stewart at the scene but I am not aware if it is in their rights to do so as he wasn't in control of a motor vehicle

 

[alexaki]

Justice has been done…..or has it....?...

Paul Keating gets off a traffic offence...cause he's high profile....

In life it's not what you know but who....and how much $$$ you have......

 

[system]

As far as the Keating thing (sorry to sidetrack) it is not really dependant on money or power. I am a pretty average guy and have fought all seven of my traffic offences in court and have only lost one

 

[Leroy_The_Tigers_Fan]

When the incident happened Stewart claimed to have no memory as he was intoxicated but at the trial he has a clear recollection and was not affected by alcohol, money talks in this case, oh and a dodgy father of the victim.

 

[Marshall_magic]

Good news for Brett, Manly and the game. I can't believe it went to court with such a weak case.

 

[Gary_Bakerloo]

Good news for Brett, Manly and the game. I can't believe it went to court with such a weak case.

Why would you say it is a weak case? Only about 10% of all charges actually get to court. The police don't just go to trial willy-nilly because they feel like wasting everyone's time. They obviously felt they had a strong case.

I think the media's reporting of this case has left everyone thinking the prosectution's case was weak. However I doubt the press are allowed to report the physical and mental effects of the alleged victim to the general population and rightly so. This would therefore see a bias towards the defendant and all the character witnesses that were provided in recent days. The prosecution could not prove beyond reasonable doubt the charges that were laid. That does not mean he did not do anything wrong, just means there is some doubt.

Where there is smoke there is usually fire. I would not want him anywhere near my kids.

 

[Yossarian]

Good news for Brett, Manly and the game. I can't believe it went to court with such a weak case.

I wouldn't call it a weak case at all. Based on the evidence I heard I think he got the benefit of the doubt. Many sexual assault cases are he said/she said kind of things - Stewart had a swag of big names saying what a top bloke he was against a young girl with a father who had criminal convictions. Personally I found the victim to be believable but he's been found not guilty and that's the end of the matter.

Meanwhile the DPP are something like 0-10 with NRL players…

 

[Marshall_magic]

Good news for Brett, Manly and the game. I can't believe it went to court with such a weak case.

Why would you say it is a weak case? Only about 10% of all charges actually get to court. The police don't just go to trial willy-nilly because they feel like wasting everyone's time. They obviously felt they had a strong case.

It was a he-said she-said case, and the prosecutions 2 main witnesses (the girl and her father) both had credibility issues, benefit of the doubt will go to the defendent in most criminal hearings, and with all the above things considered it was very unlikely that they would convict him.

 

[westTAHger]

he has been tried by his peers.
found not guilty. end of story.

 

[Gary_Bakerloo]

It was a he-said she-said case, and the prosecutions 2 main witnesses (the girl and her father) both had credibility issues, benefit of the doubt will go to the defendent in most criminal hearings, and with all the above things considered it was very unlikely that they would convict him.

You have ignored the second half of my post. The police would not go to court with just two witnesses. She underwent both a medical and psychiatric assessment and this evidence was given in court as well. This evidence did not get placed in the press in order to protect the rights of the alleged victim.

The defence brought in 3 medical "experts" to provide different explanations of the injuries she at at the time of the incident.

 

[stryker]

he has been tried by his peers.
found not guilty. end of story.

Exactly…this has dragged on for far too long now. Forget about it and move on.

 

[Marshall_magic]

It was a he-said she-said case, and the prosecutions 2 main witnesses (the girl and her father) both had credibility issues, benefit of the doubt will go to the defendent in most criminal hearings, and with all the above things considered it was very unlikely that they would convict him.

You have ignored the second half of my post. The police would not go to court with just two witnesses. She underwent both a medical and psychiatric assessment and this evidence was given in court as well. This evidence did not get placed in the press in order to protect the rights of the alleged victim.

The defence brought in 3 medical "experts" to provide different explanations of the injuries she at at the time of the incident.

My first post was probably a bit too blunt. I wasn't in court so I can only talk about what was reported. For the most part, the trial appearred to be Brett's word against her's. Based on what was reported throughout the court hearing personally I never got the impression that he was going to be found guilty. Again, I wasn't at the trial, there's probably more too it.

 

[Citizen_Tiger]

Good news for Brett, Manly and the game. I can't believe it went to court with such a weak case.

I wouldn't call it a weak case at all. Based on the evidence I heard I think he got the benefit of the doubt. Many sexual assault cases are he said/she said kind of things - Stewart had a swag of big names saying what a top bloke he was against a young girl with a father who had criminal convictions. Personally I found the victim to be believable but he's been found not guilty and that's the end of the matter.

Meanwhile the DPP are something like 0-10 with NRL players…

Agree totally Yoss, as unlikely as that may seem :slight_smile: The tone of that particular day from memory, had been set by that champion of the AVO, Mr Whatmough. Apparently old 'narrow eyes' had called the daughter of a sponsor a 'f…... s...' and then proceded to manhandle the father, a Manly sponsor, after he quite rightly objected to his daughter's treatment. That's a matter of public record.

All in all a very auspicious season launch. Were they wearing those pink ribbons?

 

[Citizen_Tiger]

Good news for Brett, Manly and the game. I can't believe it went to court with such a weak case.

I wouldn't call it a weak case at all. Based on the evidence I heard I think he got the benefit of the doubt. Many sexual assault cases are he said/she said kind of things - Stewart had a swag of big names saying what a top bloke he was against a young girl with a father who had criminal convictions. Personally I found the victim to be believable but he's been found not guilty and that's the end of the matter.

Meanwhile the DPP are something like 0-10 with NRL players…

Agree totally Yoss, as unlikely as that may seem :slight_smile: The tone of that particular day from memory, had been set by that champion of the AVO, Mr Whatmough. Apparently old 'narrow eyes' had called the daughter of a sponsor a 'f…... s...' and then proceded to manhandle the father, a Manly sponsor, after he quite rightly objected to his daughter's treatment. That's a matter of public record.

All in all a very auspicious season launch. Were they wearing those pink ribbons?

 

[prattenpark]

Not guilty, acquited of all charges. Innocent of all charges.

To suggest he received the 'benefit of the doubt' shows a failure to understand the legal system. If the charges cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt then the defendant must be acquited. We all would expect no more or no less with regard to ourselves, and with regards Robert Lui, for that matter. It's a basic principle of law in a western society.

Oh, and the police don't take the matter to court. They prepare a brief for the DPP who decides whether in his view the matter is worth pursuing - his view of the strength of the case is but one factor, political, social, resource issues all come into play. It then goes through a bunch of preliminary hearings before a judge who decides if there is a case to answer - these prelim hearings reach no conclusions as to the veracity of the evidence or the witnesses, that's what the trial is for.

 

[Yossarian]

Not guilty, acquited of all charges. Innocent of all charges.

To suggest he received the 'benefit of the doubt' shows a failure to understand the legal system. If the charges cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt then the defendant must be acquited. We all would expect no more or no less with regard to ourselves, and with regards Robert Lui, for that matter. It's a basic principle of law in a western society.

Oh, and the police don't take the matter to court. They prepare a brief for the DPP who decides whether in his view the matter is worth pursuing - his view of the strength of the case is but one factor, political, social, resource issues all come into play. It then goes through a bunch of preliminary hearings before a judge who decides if there is a case to answer - these prelim hearings reach no conclusions as to the veracity of the evidence or the witnesses, that's what the trial is for.

Seriously get off your high horse. What do you know about the background of people on this forum that makes you think they lack an understanding of the legal system? Nobody is saying he shouldn't be acquitted if the prosecution couldn't prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt - I believe this is exactly what happened hence my comment that he got the benefit of the doubt (ok maybe I could have phrased it better but I was using a league expression). But people are entitled to give their opinion on the strength of the prosecution's case with-in reason.

 

[Yossarian]

Good news for Brett, Manly and the game. I can't believe it went to court with such a weak case.

I wouldn't call it a weak case at all. Based on the evidence I heard I think he got the benefit of the doubt. Many sexual assault cases are he said/she said kind of things - Stewart had a swag of big names saying what a top bloke he was against a young girl with a father who had criminal convictions. Personally I found the victim to be believable but he's been found not guilty and that's the end of the matter.

Meanwhile the DPP are something like 0-10 with NRL players…

Agree totally Yoss, as unlikely as that may seem :slight_smile: The tone of that particular day from memory, had been set by that champion of the AVO, Mr Whatmough. Apparently old 'narrow eyes' had called the daughter of a sponsor a 'f…... s...' and then proceded to manhandle the father, a Manly sponsor, after he quite rightly objected to his daughter's treatment. That's a matter of public record.

All in all a very auspicious season launch. Were they wearing those pink ribbons?

Yes well some things we do agree on!! There are just elements of Stewart's behaviour that for me don't fit in with the defence's version of events. The DPP aren't mugs and in my experience are very cautious in bringing cases to court so they obviously thought their evidence stacked up.

By the way I'm not suggesting Stewart was guilty or that the allegations were true, I just think the prosecution case was a reasonably strong and Stewart's defence had some questions about it.

 

[king_sirro]

In my belief it was all over at the point that is was one word against the others and the history of mental illness of the accuser was bought up. Like it or not that and the bias against a father with the history he has meant there was little chance of conviction.

It would have been useful if the Police had taken a blood alcohol level on Stewart at the scene but I am not aware if it is in their rights to do so as he wasn't in control of a motor vehicle

But what his his alcohol level have to do with proving the truth one way or the other?

 

[Peaches]

While he was found guilty, mud sticks. I doubt too many people who don't know him personally look at someone in his situation (who has gotten off charges laid against him) the same. I am part of that crowd. You just have questions and suspicisions. Life goes on though and its up for everyone to deal with it their own way. For Brett, it will be getting back on the footy field and getting some more tries at his beloved Brookvale Oval.