This was the headline in the SMH today.
In the article, Scott Penn is quoted as saying “My personal belief is that if the police believe there is enough to charge an individual with, then something has happened. An individual has put themselves into a position...if they are charged, the game has to take a stance. I am in favour of stand downs if someone is charged...”
I have no problem with him agreeing with the idea of stand downs - that is his opinion and right.
However, essentially saying that where the is smoke, there is fire is very naive. The Brett Stewart case should have taught him that. To this day, having regard to the “evidence” tendered by the Crown, I have always wondered why the police even considered taking it to trial, let alone going on with it.
In the article, Scott Penn is quoted as saying “My personal belief is that if the police believe there is enough to charge an individual with, then something has happened. An individual has put themselves into a position...if they are charged, the game has to take a stance. I am in favour of stand downs if someone is charged...”
I have no problem with him agreeing with the idea of stand downs - that is his opinion and right.
However, essentially saying that where the is smoke, there is fire is very naive. The Brett Stewart case should have taught him that. To this day, having regard to the “evidence” tendered by the Crown, I have always wondered why the police even considered taking it to trial, let alone going on with it.