AFLPA, Galbally, Nixon and the privilege against self-incrimination

As reported by smh Nixon has yet to speak with David Galbally as  part of his independent investigation into allegations he had sex with the 17 year old Saints girl and supplied cocaine to a minor, the latter a serious offence under the criminal law.

Despite conceding that Nixon had neither returned to Australia or had any immediate plans to, Nixon’s lawyer claimed it was unfair to characterise Nixon as not co-ooperating with the investigation, a rather bold and starting claim. 

AFLPA chief executive Matthew Finnis stated he was nonetheless hopeful of a resolution by the end of next week, irrespective of whether Nixon made himsef availabe to Galbally, and said he was  looking forward to Galbally being able to present ‘something’ to the AFLPA within the time frame he requested.

Finnis is prepared to make some compromises, and has proven to be very accommodating. He says that the AFLPA is prepared to make its decision on all of the evidence availabe to it, even if that excludes any input from Nixon.

When independent investigations, enquiries and Royal Commissions are established there are usually some terms of reference and rules or framework to govern them. What are the rules which are applied in this rather unorthodox investigation, who crafted them, and what are the standards which are to apply in terms of the admissibility of evidence, procedure  and the onus of proof.

One of the recurring themes which often comes up in ‘investigations’ of this kind is whether a privilege of self-incrimination applies to those asked to answer questions by the person appointed to conduct the investigation.

Were Galbally to ask Nixon whether he committed a criminal offence would he be required to answer this question, or would he be protected by the privilege against self-incrimination?

We don’t know what the terms of reference are, what the framework is, and without that information, the investigation is being conducted under a veil of secrecy. The public has a right to some transparency where it concerns matters of public interest.

I suppose one could use their imagination and draw inferences as to whether the AFLPA wants Ricky Nixon to be asked that question from their official position, as outlined cleary and unequivocally by Matt Finnis. 

After all Matt Finnis seems happy to accept ‘findings‘ without any of those questions being posed to Ricky Nixon. I suppose it is superfluous to him, notwithstanding the fact that the first reguation in the relevant code of conduct states “I will at all times act in accordance with Australian law…”.

Perhaps in Finnis’ mind that is just a minor detail in the grand scheme of achieving an outcome.

Meanwhile there have been  fears expressed over unauthorised access by a number of Police Officers to the Saints girls’ file resident on the Police LEAP database, coupled with concerns that information which came into possession of the St Kilda Football Club may have travelled via this route.

Related posts:

  1. AFL brotherhood & Saints girl cover up
  4. Dickileaks – Saints and Teenager Arrive At Settlement in Saints Photo Scandal
  5. Dickileaks – Reputation Management – ‘Remove’ and ‘Move On’ – How To Sanitise A Saint
This entry was posted in Media, Online defamation, Sports Law, Twitter, Whistleblowers and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *