South win Supreme Court battle - but will it be enough?

Justice Pagone handed down his judgement today, agreeing with the FFV that they may substitute additional charges as is allowed under their constitution, but that in this instance they did not properly offer South an opportunity to defend the newly created charge, which included both not giving enough notice and not articulating the charge. Justice Pagone also awarded legal costs to South - though it seems like we did not get all our costs paid, but rather the majority.

The crowd was the biggest of the trial thus far. At least four South fans in attendance pondering whether to start chanting when the verdict was handed down, asking if anyone had any flares, and whether we should have brought our South scarves to pretend to be ultras for the cameras outside. In the end, nothing happened, and people got quickly to replying to the several dozen phone messages they'd received asking about the case.

The press also turned up today, filling up at least four spots in their section of the courtroom. One bloke was from the ABC, and you should probably keep an eye out for a brief segment featuring Nick Galatas speaking to them outside the court. According to the journo, when asked what the significance was of this case, he said it was something a little different and unusual. Obviously not familiar with Victorian soccer. If I'm not mistaken, Michael Lynch was also there. Probably hasn't reported on a game of ours since 2005 (apart from the Victory friendly), but there he was. Meanwhile Paul Daffey gets a weekly column talking about the VAFA. Beggars can't be choosers I suppose.

The net result is that sometime soon, possibly as early as tonight, the appeals tribunal will be reconvened to hear the case once more. Justice Pagone made the point that he did not have the authority or the will to demand that the FFV use an appeals board made up entirely of people who had not been part of the original appeals tribunal. So the situation basically is that we can still get done over at the appeals tribunal - it'll just be that little bit easier for us to defend ourselves this time. Should we have results of the appeal go our way and we make the finals, we'll end up playing Heidelberg in the elimination final this week. Lovely little coincidence. We'll see what happens.

Judgement Day tomorrow

Well, for us anyway, if not quite Christendom itself. The first part of this will take place at Court, Court 1, Old High Court, 450 Little Bourke Street, Melbourne, with Justice Pagone. Again. The second part, if there is one, later that night, or so they say. Likely won't last long. Your correspondent plans to be there.

Your Guess Is As Good As Mine

I'll be blunt. I don't make any claim to understanding the law. While some other people who attended today's hearing walked away from it reasonably confident, albeit still with an appropriate level of cautiousness, I'm not so sure - certainly I don't think we came out of it any worse than we when we came into it - but Justice Pagone is a hard man to read. I'll do my best to set the scene.

The first 50 minutes or so was taken up with our lawyer setting up the foundations so to speak. Nothing new or exciting there; quite dull actually. It was after the 50 minute mark that we started seeing a bit more action. That's where we started going through the arguments we thought were relevant. After about another 45/50 minutes, it was the FFV's turn.

Justice Pagone is quite softly spoken and has a very wry sense of humour. Very old school teacher kind of vibe as well - he was giving each side enough rope before succinctly and subtly bringing them back into line. Since we went first, it was quite nerve wracking to see him shoot down various angles we were trying to pursue - the thing to remember was that he was just as likely to do it to the FFV's lawyers, which is exactly what happened. He even managed to break out in laughter a couple of times.


As one would expect in such a matter, both sides appealed to many of the same materials - the original tribunal hearing, the appeal transcript (which went to 120 pages) and the FFV's constitution - with emphasis on which elements would take importance over others differing, of course.

Much was vested by either side in two little words - for us 'other', and for the FFV 'may'. We were trying to argue the point that since the issues of bottle throwing, racial vilification etc. had been covered by the original charges (I think MP5 and/or MP9 was the main one), what 'other' charges were they trying to hit us with in MP10? For the FFV, if I recall correctly, they were talking about the ways in which they 'may' introduce charges and/or punishments as they wish and as is indicated in their constitution.

In terms of preparedness and performance, I think our side was better. It won't be the main thing Justice Pagone will look at, but it wasn't a good look the FFV fumbling around for papers they didn't have, and being unable to answer how they managed to come to their idea of a six point deduction - in addition to it seemingly going against their pre-ordained list of set penalties of for transgressions. At least, that's how I read the situation.

The FFV tried to argue that the possibility of the punishment being heavier on appeal was always on the table, as it is with regular courts. We argued that how could that be so when we had already been punished and accepted guilt for those actions previously - surely we could not be found guilty and punished for the same charge twice? The FFV seemed to struggle to prove to Justice Pagone that the new charge and/or heavier punishment had been adequately articulated to Nick Galatas - with both sides pointing to different parts of the appeal transcript to prove their point the FFV focusing naturally on very early segments, us on the very end - both sides deemed this quite crucial to the debate. We referred to the Carlton vs AFL case of a few years back - the FFV to the 1978 case of the NSW Coursing Club or something like that.

The FFV lawyers at one stage mistakenly indicated that Heidelberg Laser Dude was one of our fans - he was immediately corrected, though Justice Pagone wondered out loud what kind of game was this that caused such behaviour. Clarendon Corner was described as a known trouble spot. I wish I could be as confident as others seem to be about our chances, but I don't know the law, and I don't know what Justice Pagone will come up with next week, and which arguments he'll be swayed by the most. Like the rest of us, I just have to wait until next week when Justice Pagone hands down his decision.

Directions hearing rundown

Awesome five minutes of action today. The lawyers on each side did their little legalese speaking act, papers and stuff to be done by a certain time (by us), trying to fit the whole thing into Justice Pagone's schedule. The FFV for their part, seemed to be trying to argue that if results of other matches went a certain way, the case wouldn't really be necessary - at least that's how I understood it. Justice Pagone eventually agreed with South's legal reps that, yep, we could finish this all tomorrow.

As for the less important stuff, I've added that court building to my list of court's attended. It's not much of a list to be honest - it was the first time I'd been to court since I got called up for jury duty about two or three years ago. Being the dill that I am, I forgot to take my watch off when going through the metal detector. That's about as exciting as it got.

The action should go up a notch on Thursday 12th August, as the actual trial gets underway. We're back in the Old High Court building once more, in Court 1, 450 Little Bourke Street, kickoff at 10am. Referee for this match is Justice Pagone.

South vs FFV directions hearing tomorrow

In the Commercial Court, with Justice Pagone (who doesn't have his own wikipedia page, unlike some justices), Court 1, Ground Floor, Old High Court, 450 Little Bourke Street, Melbourne, at 9:30.

It's a directions hearing, which this Australian legal glossary defines as

A hearing held before the full hearing so that the court or tribunal can give directions to the parties about how the action should proceed.

Which doesn't sound very fun and interesting. Not sure if it's worth going to. Then again, I don't think I've been in the Commercial Court before. Decisions, decisions.