Post history

History for Carefree

Kick racism out of Football

Back to topic

Current version

Posted August 05, 2013 19:28 · last edited August 05, 2013 19:29

Napier Phoenix wrote:
Carefree wrote:
Tegal wrote:

Are you sure that was the standard of proof required? Seems a little harsh to be found guilty of racism (a crime) based on balance of probabilities. Beyond reasonable doubt seems more appropriate for such an accusation. 

I'm not sure what "standard of proof" is actually required, and from reading the decision it doesn't seem like the Committee knew either. The standards they chose to adopt (and then apply slightly inconsistently) was as I have quoted.

Beyond reasonable doubt is the criminal justice system standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities is the civil standard. So this would of been the blance of probabilities a reasonably low threshold.


Yes, I'm well aware of the difference between criminal and civil law standards of proof.

What I mean is, if you read the decision, the Committee themselves didn't know what was the appropriate standard, and after adopting the civil standard proceeded to apply it inconsistently.

Anyway, some bullshit from the Seatoun coach in the Dom Post this morning: http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/9005189/Racist-abuse-did-happen-but-offender-is-unknown

If an adjournment was actually requested and denied we can expect an appeal to NZF. Ha, I doubt it.

Previous versions

1 version
Carefree edited August 05, 2013 19:29
Napier Phoenix wrote:
Carefree wrote:
Tegal wrote:

Are you sure that was the standard of proof required? Seems a little harsh to be found guilty of racism (a crime) based on balance of probabilities. Beyond reasonable doubt seems more appropriate for such an accusation. 

I'm not sure what "standard of proof" is actually required, and from reading the decision it doesn't seem like the Committee knew either. The standards they chose to adopt (and then apply slightly inconsistently) was as I have quoted.

Beyond reasonable doubt is the criminal justice system standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities is the civil standard. So this would of been the blance of probabilities a reasonably low threshold.

Yes, I'm well aware of the difference between criminal and civil law standards of proof.
What I mean is, if you read the decision, the Committee themselves didn't know what was the appropriate standard, and after adopting the civil standard proceeded to apply it inconsistently.
Anyway, some bullshit from the Seatoun coach in the Dom Post this morning: http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/9005189/Racist-abuse-did-happen-but-offender-is-unknown
If that was a valid reason and an adjournment was actually requested and denied we can expect an appeal to NZF. Ha, I doubt it.