: Fri Feb 13, 2009 5:14 pm  

El Diablo wrote:

I think that's optimistic, given that the visa process will have to be re-started, after a trial which won't finish until early May at best.

2 days are set aside for the trial the 27th and 28th of April.

: Fri Feb 13, 2009 5:15 pm  

El Diablo wrote:

Given how drawn out the visa process has become, and how drawn out a court case in the public eye might be, is there a strong likelihood that he'll never actually get here even if he isn't convicted? If cleared he's free to plaay in the NRL in 2010 after all.

It's a 2 day trial that's whats been set aside.

: Fri Feb 13, 2009 5:31 pm  

my mate is emigrating to oz and people are NOT allowed in there if they have a court case pending.if they are cleared then fine.
why should we treat them any differently?

nothing against bird or the bulls but i feel that is the correct way to go

: Fri Feb 13, 2009 5:43 pm  

tad rhino wrote:

my mate is emigrating to oz and people are NOT allowed in there if they have a court case pending.if they are cleared then fine.
why should we treat them any differently?

nothing against bird or the bulls but i feel that is the correct way to go

Nice jugs !!!

: Fri Feb 13, 2009 5:44 pm  

tad rhino wrote:

my mate is emigrating to oz and people are NOT allowed in there if they have a court case pending.if they are cleared then fine.
why should we treat them any differently?

nothing against bird or the bulls but i feel that is the correct way to go

Emigrating and coming over to play sport for 1 or 2 years is a totally different thing IMO.

: Fri Feb 13, 2009 5:57 pm  

The Law states that you are innocent 'til proved guilty but that is not always the case because for some offences, passports and other documents have to be surrendered, turning the law on it's head guilty 'til proved innocent. If a legal ruling in either UK or Australia says he can't exit his current residence then that is final until his court appearance and every thing else is irrelevant.

[Durham Giant]

: Fri Feb 13, 2009 6:14 pm  

redeverready wrote
The trouble is it's not even the same. Crocker and Carney were refused because of convictions. Bird has been refused because he might be convicted.[

NO
NO
AND THRICE NO.


the refusals are not based solely on convictions or charges but on the catch all of not been conducive to the common good.

If the do not want someone coming in because of their past behaviour it is all the same if they are convicted, just charged , acquitted or whatever.


Therefore it is exactly the same.

: Fri Feb 13, 2009 6:23 pm  

Durham Giant wrote:

redeverready wrote
The trouble is it's not even the same. Crocker and Carney were refused because of convictions. Bird has been refused because he might be convicted.[

NO
NO
AND THRICE NO.


the refusals are not based solely on convictions or charges but on the catch all of not been conducive to the common good.

If the do not want someone coming in because of their past behaviour it is all the same if they are convicted, just charged , acquitted or whatever.


Therefore it is exactly the same.

That's all well and good but if Bird is found not guilty his past behavior is irrelevant as he's been judged on it by a jury of his peers and deemed acceptable.

: Fri Feb 13, 2009 6:32 pm  

Ridiculous decision.

: Fri Feb 13, 2009 6:46 pm  

It is to be hoped that Birds criminal lawyer takes advice from an immigration lawyer as to which charges are fatal for a visa application. What may seem from a criminal point of view as being minor can be devastating to an immigration application. Lying to the Police (Moral Turpitude in the States) is the worse of the charges, immigration wise.