*Official* Bangladesh in New Zealand 2016/2017

[Burgey]

It can't be "settled". It's a criminal case.

Once he's charged and committed it goes to trial before a jury. It's a rape case ffs. It's a strictly indictable offence, it some bloke going before a beak for taking a squirt in an alley outside a nightclub.

 

[Blocky]

Surely to some extent it depends on the seriousness of the alleged offence.

Well the interesting one is the circumstance; public record facts

1. Kugg and his flatmates hold a party where the girl attends
2. Kugg and the girl start kissing, and then are considered to be dry humping by other party attendees
3. In a conversation heard by a mutual friend, there is a discussion whether or not she is on the pill
4. Soon after that conversation, Kugg leaves his own flat with her and goes to her flat
5. They both admit that while drunk, they get naked and fool around, but that she says no to intercourse and he stops
6. They go to sleep, before waking up and starting again
7. The incident occurs, he states that she was consenting in the morning, she states he wasn't
8. She leaves the room to get him a drink of water, only for her flatmate to come in and ask him to leave
9. Text messages exchanged by Kugg and others indicate he was apologetic, but unsure as to what had happened or why she was upset.

So now you've got a situation where implied consent has to be taken into consideration, also equally as much as regret after consent leading her to then feel she hadn't given consent.

20 years ago, the cops wouldn't have prosecuted this.

 

[SteveNZ]

Surely to some extent it depends on the seriousness of the alleged offence.

I'm not a huge rugby follower but I'm sure there have been All Blacks (one particular winger going back 7-8 years who was up for domestic abuse) who continued to play. Certainly there have been shitloads of NRL players who have continued to be picked, to do what is their job. Shaun Kenny-Dowall being one this year, who was up on domestic violence charges, was not available for selection due to his mental health but picked after that, pre trial. Kuggleijn has pleaded not guilty, yes - for those who are following?

If someone pleads not guilty, to me (and you're much more well versed than me on this) it's irrelevant how serious the allegation is. In fact it's much more likely someone will be falsely accused of a higher level offense.

 

[Burgey]

I don't ever pay attention to what's in the media when it comes to court cases, but I take what you're saying at face value. I still wouldn't pick someone to represent the country if they're facing that sort of charge.

The fact the cops wouldn't have touched it 20 years ago is very likely a greater reflection on how the cops looked at those things back then than it is on this bloke's guilt or innocence (or that of those accused of similar things two decades back).

 

[Burgey]

I see where you're coming from re the presumption of innocence, but if for example some bloke was accused of planning a terrorist offence, would you want him getting picked while awaiting trial? likewose someone accused of murder?

I'm not saying it's an easy question, or one where you can draw an arbitrary line. It's very difficult. If the kid is innocent he's basically been denied a shot at a good career and a big profile, based on what you've said about his ability.

 

[vcs]

It's always very difficult to comment on these cases without knowing the facts, which none of us really do.

 

[SteveNZ]

Yeah it's a grey area. I have no great issue with what the selectors have done. But I thought his non-selection in the NZ A team was something that resembled restraint of trade, given the absolute absence of media interest that was likely to occur. I'd be picking him, but it's not my balls on the line.

If it was me, and I was innocent, I would've been going to NZC and say hey, I'm clean here and I want to play for my country. All the NZ posters will agree with me that he would otherwise be in the limited over sides. But hey, I'm in a lounge chair on holiday and have no inside info/relationship to this whole thing, so I'm no authority.

 

[Burgey]

Yeah if the fella's innocent then it's a life ruining thing for him, even if he's vindicated in court.

 

[Blocky]

If you followed the Tostee trial with the Tinder bird that he'd met, had he not recorded that night, he'd be a convicted murderer based on the character assassination done by the media and police on him.

It's just not cut and dry in this day and age, there is a reason that the first trial was hung and I'm surprised that the police are bothering to go through round two.

 

[Burgey]

But if it was cut and dried oneway or the other they'd have reached a verdict.

 

[Blocky]

But if it was cut and dried oneway or the other they'd have reached a verdict.

Not necessarily; the flaw with the jury system is that you're asking non legal people to make decisions that have legal technicalities involved. The judge strongly implied that reasonable doubt had been met as a condition and the jury remained hung.

 

[Burgey]

Still back the jury system over judge alone trials in criminal cases tbh

 

[Shady Slim]

inquisitorial system's for shunts lol

just ask the palfreeman family it is not a good system at all, impartial juries are a necessity

 

[_Ed_]

The fact the cops wouldn't have touched it 20 years ago is very likely a greater reflection on how the cops looked at those things back then than it is on this bloke's guilt or innocence (or that of those accused of similar things two decades back).

IMO it's absolutely a good thing that it's taken more seriously now.

 

[_Ed_]

The Kuggeleijn case and the simple concepts we still don?t understand about consent |

 

[Blocky]

IMO it's absolutely a good thing that it's taken more seriously now.

I agree; but in the same token these types of situations are very murky in my opinion, when you're down to he said, she said, with alcohol involved, and endless accounts of them sucking each others faces off throughout the night, and conversations in regards to contraception that others had heard, etc. I just think in todays age, the Tostee trial was a great scope on how quick we are to place blame upon the male in a situation where two parties are intoxicated and an incident happens.

 

[Zinzan]

Been plenty of All Blacks that have continued to play, pending court cases. And probably other sports. In a way he's unlucky he hadn't debuted before it. I have little doubt a current squad member would continue to be picked, but Scott is deemed a no go zone.

Is that right? I can understand why the selectors steer clear. But I think we all agree he'd 100% be there, ODIs and T20s, if not for the court case. And on the presumption of innocence, plus the fact I don't imagine it would raise a massive outcry in the media, I think I'd be picking him.

Ftr, that was Kuggeleijn's decision Kuggeleijn steps down | Stuff.co.nz

Edit: Unless you believe he was given a nudge.

 

[jcas0167]

Still back the jury system over judge alone trials in criminal cases tbh

If you're guilty it's generally preferable to have trial by jury. Much better chance of convincing some of them that there is doubt.

 

[SteveNZ]

Ftr, that was Kuggeleijn's decision Kuggeleijn steps down | Stuff.co.nz

Edit: Unless you believe he was given a nudge.

I believe he was, yes. Only a guess, but that's how I read it.

I also can't see the difference between him playing for ND or NZ A. In fact, playing for ND puts him more in the spotlight in terms of the Super Smash. To me, it had to be NZCs way of saying we won't pick you for NZ until this thing is done, so we won't pick you for a pathway either. To me, he had the right to perform in the avenue of his employment and at the very least further prove his worth for the higher level should he found nit guilty.

 

[Zinzan]

I believe he was, yes. Only a guess, but that's how I read it.

I also can't see the difference between him playing for ND or NZ A. In fact, playing for ND puts him more in the spotlight in terms of the Super Smash. To me, it had to be NZCs way of saying we won't pick you for NZ until this thing is done, so we won't pick you for a pathway either. To me, he had the right to perform in the avenue of his employment and at the very least further prove his worth for the higher level should he found nit guilty.

I'm 50/50 on whether he was pushed into it. As someone pointed out, it's happened to All Blacks before, so not a massive stretch that it was he who wanted out of the national spotlight until the trial was done with. Especially with the prospect of travelling with NZ or NZ A.

Even had the selectors preferred his non-selection status, I could see it being voluntary on his part, following advice from family, counsel etc.