How Geelong star’s dropped rape charges draw attention to AFL stand-down policy

Loading

Police had charged Bruhn with multiple counts of sexual assault, including rape. These charges were the trigger for the AFL to bar the footballer from playing AFL or VFL football.

The AFL, unlike the NRL, does not have a mandatory withdrawal policy. Under rugby league’s policy, a player charged with any offense that could lead to an 11-year prison sentence if convicted is automatically banned from the game. Players facing lesser charges may also withdraw at the CEO’s discretion.

The AFL’s policy is more nuanced, or arbitrary depending on your perspective, and deals with matters on a case-by-case basis rather than imposing a fixed threshold. The situation was further complicated by the order banning Bruhn’s identity. If no one theoretically knew who he was or could legally report that he was facing charges, was it necessary to silence him?

Both sports bodies insist that they, like other employers who fire or suspend people over criminal charges, have not waived the presumption of players’ innocence, even if their actions create that impression. They argue that it is inappropriate for an accused person to represent them.

Loading

Neither the AFL’s policy nor the NRL’s policy qualitatively considers the evidence against a player. What matters is the truth of an accusation. It is the weight of the accusation, not the weight of the evidence, that determines whether the player can be removed from office.

Withdrawal policy is not about jurisprudence, but about real-world realities and perceptions. The sports body evaluates public opinion and takes into account the damage done to the reputation of the sport.

The sports establishment is trying to prevent the shocking impropriety of a player accused of serious crimes, especially violent crimes against women, who is celebrated and applauded on the field for playing sports and representing a club and league.

The AFL players’ union, the AFLPA, accused the league of acting prematurely by leaving Bruhn behind. Possibly the alternatives were that he not withdraw until after a hearing; this would become controversial as he would face prison time if convicted. Or possibly he didn’t back down until after the committal hearing. This is a difficult point to argue, given that the charges were withdrawn during this week’s committal hearing.

However, as of December 28 this year, there will be a significant change in the system in Victoria. Alleged victims and witnesses in serious sexual offense cases will no longer be cross-examined at this stage of the process; This is the end of committal hearings as we know them. The idea of ​​stalling someone until they are executed is gone.

This means, at least in Victoria, the league will not either withdraw a player accused of rape or back down on accusations as the AFL has done here.

There is very little in between.

The charge is thought to be the trigger for withdrawing a player because serious rigor is normally applied in evaluating evidence before police and Ministry of Public Prosecution lawyers accept the charge. Charges are only brought if there is believed to be a reasonable possibility of conviction.

Frankly, Bruhn and Sinnott were acquitted because the evidence was flawed and a witness admitted to lying. The police and DPP must now answer how the case got to this point.

Loading

Criticism that the AFL’s decision to withdraw Bruhn was a disproportionate response is a moment of adjective-seeking outrage.

If it is accepted that a retraction policy is legitimate for a sporting institution – and it is perfectly clear to argue that it is not – then what level of retraction would be appropriate in the absence of accusations of rape? Is murder or involuntary manslaughter the only opportune moment to put a player behind while he or she is likely under arrest?

It was emphasized that the AFL’s involvement in the Noah Balta case this year contrasted with Bruhn. It was quite different, not even in the same criminal territory. But Richmond’s Balta should not have been allowed to play earlier this year.

Balta was accused of a drunken assault outside a bar that sent a man to hospital. He should have been suspended because he admitted his guilt and was awaiting sentencing. This withdrawal should have been part of the AFL ban as punishment.

Balta was suspended from the club in agreement with the AFL and returned to the match before the suspension was handed down. The court later imposed a night curfew and alcohol ban as part of his non-custodial sentence, but at no stage did he face the risk of a long (more than a year) prison sentence. Bruhn faced a lengthy prison sentence if convicted of the charges against him.

If the AFL had not stopped Bruhn and played all year despite the banning order and then committed to going to court, would that be like a league in touch with public sentiment?

In a sport where there are winners and losers, there are no winners here.

Keep up to date with the best AFL coverage in the country. Sign up for the Real Footy newsletter.