If you want to talk about Ben Cousins, post it here (mega merged thread)

[TheGrimReaper]

By the time the cameras started rolling, he had already been moved to the backseat of his car, I am pretty confident it was the public that tipped the media off.

Some people had already posted the "rumour" that Cousins was having his car searched on boards before the media even got wind of it.

I wouldn't be surprised either way.

[ScottH]

I am not saying it does not happen, and not necessarily saying i disagree with random setups on the side of the road to randomly test passers by.

My concern is targeted 'random' testing where someone is followed then 'random' tested.

I just think it gives police too much opportunity to harass individuals or minority goups.

Just my opinion

I thought it was interesting that the gang(?) squad got him, not a drug squad. Maybe that gives credence to GS14's ABC report.

[AnnieH]

I heard on the weekend that they found $20K cash in disgraced ex-west coast eagles fallen star ben cousins' car.
He'd just stopped at the ATM.

[Industrial Fan]

With a possibility of drink spiking ("A staggering one in four people recently surveyed claimed to be victims of sneaky drink spikers."), his career in the balance if he failed a test and police trying to Punk him, he took the smart option.

How can you be so sure that source is relevant?

[goswannie14]

I heard on the weekend that they found $20K cash in disgraced ex-west coast eagles fallen star ben cousins' car.
He'd just stopped at the ATM.

I think you'll find it was $20.00 Annie.

[AnnieH]

I think you'll find it was $20.00 Annie.

That was the alledged $20 that allegedly had traces of an alleged illegal substance on it (or so the alleged rumour goes).

[573v30]

Well, he gets $50 after the drug charge was dropped.

Source
I hope he doesn't roll it up.

[AnnieH]

... take your fifty in damages benny and sit down and shut up - no more legal recourse.

Personally, I would have gone for the millions.

Maybe he just doesn't want it invesigated any further.

[robbieando]

... take your fifty in damages benny and sit down and shut up - no more legal recourse.

He was awarded costs from a "Criminal" case, because that all his lawyer asked for. Hardly a big deal in my view and hardly the last we'll hear of this matter because we still have the second charge to come and if successful in getting a not-guilty verdict in that matter he'll be award a far larger costs payout (basically the cost Ben has involved in fighting the charge in Court, legal fees and costs of witness).

If he wants to take "Civil Action" against the WA Police Service (which has been mooted), then he has PLENTY of legal recourse left. So maybe you should work out the difference between Criminal Jurisdiction and Civil Jurisdiction before deciding that Ben has no legal recourse left available to him.

Because he certainly has the second charge which he is contesting and can appeal if found guilty under the "Criminal Jurisdiction". Then there is Civil Action he can take against the WA Police Force for the way they handled the first drugs charge (and again access to the appeal process if damages aren't found in his favour) in the "Civil Jurisdiction"

[BeeEmmAre]

He was awarded costs from a "Criminal" case, because that all his lawyer asked for. Hardly a big deal in my view and hardly the last we'll hear of this matter because we still have the second charge to come and if successful in getting a not-guilty verdict in that matter he'll be award a far larger costs payout (basically the cost Ben has involved in fighting the charge in Court, legal fees and costs of witness).

If he wants to take "Civil Action" against the WA Police Service (which has been mooted), then he has PLENTY of legal recourse left. So maybe you should work out the difference between Criminal Jurisdiction and Civil Jurisdiction before deciding that Ben has no legal recourse left available to him.

Because he certainly has the second charge which he is contesting and can appeal if found guilty under the "Criminal Jurisdiction". Then there is Civil Action he can take against the WA Police Force for the way they handled the first drugs charge (and again access to the appeal process if damages aren't found in his favour) in the "Civil Jurisdiction"

But would he want all that has been hidden brought out in the open?

[robbieando]

But would he want all that has been hidden brought out in the open?

What has been hidden though?? He has admitted to his drug problem and any civil action would be brought against the WA Police Service for their handling of his arrest and getting his drug possession charge so very wrong in such a very public manner.

Most of what's known already would hurt him if it wasn't public already in a civil action and therefore you wouldn't hear discussion about a civil action from the Cousins camp.

What hasn't come out yet (basically what drugs he has used in the past, how long he has used for, has he started using again since returning from rehab, how he got his drugs and who from his inner-circle also uses drugs, questions that HAVEN'T been answered but people either know pretty much the answer or can make a fair guess) wouldn't have an impact on this sort of civil action because it doesn't go anyway to explain why the WA Police involved acted the way they did.

[BeeEmmAre]

What has been hidden though??

We don't know, that's the point.

He has admitted to his drug problem and any civil action would be brought against the WA Police Service for their handling of his arrest and getting his drug possession charge so very wrong in such a very public manner.
Most of what's known already would hurt him if it wasn't public already in a civil action and therefore you wouldn't hear discussion about a civil action from the Cousins camp.
What hasn't come out yet (basically what drugs he has used in the past, how long he has used for, has he started using again since returning from rehab, how he got his drugs and who from his inner-circle also uses drugs, questions that HAVEN'T been answered but people either know pretty much the answer or can make a fair guess) wouldn't have an impact on this sort of civil action because it doesn't go anyway to explain why the WA Police involved acted the way they did.

That's fair, but there was also talk of suing the Eagles and the AFL for wrongful dismissal, in which case we'd find out about the 'repeated and serious breaches of his contract' which had him sacked in the first place.
I don't know if there's anything to hide, but if there is, legal action would most likely bring it all out in the open.
If everything has been revealed, he'll probably go ahead because he's got nothing more to lose.
If there are still skeletons, he'll probably want them kept quiet in case he wants to try to get on another list.

[robbieando]

We don't know, that's the point.

But from a legal standpoint, in a civil action against the WA Police Service in the handling of their arrest of him on a drug charge in such a public manner, I doubt what hasn't come out would be of much use to explain why the WA Police handled the case in such a poor manner in the end.

That's fair, but there was also talk of suing the Eagles and the AFL for wrongful dismissal, in which case we'd find out about the 'repeated and serious breaches of his contract' which had him sacked in the first place.

If that's the case, then that would be a seperate civil action and then I would doubt he would want to go ahead with it because as you have pointed out, it would make everything public and looking from afar the Eagles had "just cause" to end his contract and the AFL had nothing to do with that other than to block him from being picked up by another club on the cheap, which would be unfair on West Coast.

I don't know if there's anything to hide, but if there is, legal action would most likely bring it all out in the open.

Correct, but only if he is asked certain questions and he answers them. Same if West Coast answer their knowledge about his useage timeframe, habit and so forth.

If everything has been revealed, he'll probably go ahead because he's got nothing more to lose.

Certainly.

If there are still skeletons, he'll probably want them kept quiet in case he wants to try to get on another list.

Regardless he'll want to keep them quiet. As for playing again, I doubt any club would take the risk on him regardless of his talent.

Personally, if he is going to take Civil Action, it will be against the WA Police Service only and for legal cost and "future earnings" lost because of the media involvement that cost him his playing career. I doubt he'll take Civil Action against the Eagles and the AFL because his playing contract was pretty much water tight and the Eagles could of cut it up over the smallest issue.

[ROK Lobster]

If that's the case, then that would be a seperate civil action and then I would doubt he would want to go ahead with it because as you have pointed out, it would make everything public and looking from afar the Eagles had "just cause" to end his contract and the AFL had nothing to do with that other than to block him from being picked up by another club on the cheap, which would be unfair on West Coast.

Do the rules of evidence apply in the Industrial Relations Tribunal? Is "just cause" a defence to unfair dismissal or are you envisaging a common law act for breach of contract? And what do you think about an action for restraint of trade under the Trade Practices Act? I would be also interested to hear if you consider that the club owe Cousins a duty of care. There are those on RWO who consider that they do not but I would consider that to be a fundamental misunderstanding of the law. What's your opinion Robbie?

[Chow-Chicker]

Do the rules of evidence apply in the Industrial Relations Tribunal? Is "just cause" a defence to unfair dismissal or are you envisaging a common law act for breach of contract? And what do you think about an action for restraint of trade under the Trade Practices Act? I would be also interested to hear if you consider that the club owe Cousins a duty of care. There are those on RWO who consider that they do not but I would consider that to be a fundamental misunderstanding of the law. What's your opinion Robbie?

Here we go again.

Duty of Care under what law? Please provide the link or the actual Act in which you are referring. And please define what duty of care is owed to Cousins - is it new employment? Is it rehabilitation? Is it to provide him with legal representation? Is it to ensure that he doesn't damage the club's or the AFL's name through public stupidity?

@@@@ing amazing how so much effort goes into defending this idiot after all the bull@@@@ he gets himself into time and again.

Try these for size;

Punch on with Daniel Kerr, Cousins gets pushed down stairs and breaks arm.

Refuses to cooperate with police investigations in relation to a mob shooting in perth.

Does a runner from a booze bus, leaving girlfriend behind.

Gets absolutely @@@@ faced at crown and is photographed passed out in the street.

Father admits he is a drug addict, goes to America for rehab.

Was at Mainwaring's house hours before he died of a drug overdose.

Pulled over for driving erratically, refuses to take a driver assessment.

Numerous times the Eagles have warned that he is on his "last warning". If he was a second string player he would've been gone years ago. He is yet to suffer any consequences for his stupid actions other than his contract being terminated.

Duty of care? Hahahaha