In 2019, following a litany of off-field controversies, many of which involved allegations against NRL players of violence against women, the NRL introduced a no-fault stand down policy which would apply to players charged with serious criminal offences.
Then ARL chair Peter Beattie stressed that the policy was aimed at protecting the image of the game and deterring bad behaviour but was not to be construed in any way, shape or form as a declaration of guilt.
Beattie said at the time that it was an important feature of the policy that player welfare be balanced with a need to take seriously allegations of serious crimes which was the rationale underpinning that a player stood down pursuant to the policy could continue to be involved in their club, engage in training and other activities but would be prohibited from playing.
The first player stood down pursuant to the policy, and arguably the most controversial, was Jack de Belin of the St George Illawarra Dragons. De Belin was charged with extremely serious sexual assault offences against a woman in December 2018 and subsequently stood down for approximately two and a half years while his case played out in court and in the media.
De Belin was the subject of two criminal trials both of which returned hung juries in relation to most offences meaning that the jury was not able to agree as to whether or not he should have been found guilty or not guilty. Thereafter, the prosecution abandoned the case against de Belin and the charges against him were dismissed following which he was free to resume playing duties.
Interestingly, de Belin was never found “not guilty”, rather the case against him was abandoned due to two hung juries. Many argue that if two juries were unable to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt then that is all but a declaration of innocence. Others say he just got lucky.
What is factually indisputable however is that de Belin was never found guilty of the offences he was charged with and yet served a two-and-a-half-year suspension from working in his chosen profession. One argument is that he was paid, and therefore, suffered no loss – play on. Others say that missing nearly three NRL seasons could have been catastrophic for his career which at the time of the allegations was peaking. The ideological stance that the importance of one’s career pales in comparison to justice for victims of serious crimes is trite, because at the point of the standdown nothing has been proven.
This week, controversial former Penrith Panther Taylan May had domestic violence related charges against him dropped in the Penrith Local Court. May was subjected to the NRL’s no-fault stand down policy in May 2024, a suspension of almost a year in relation to charges that were ultimately abandoned by the prosecution. Another famous example of a player charged, stood down, tried but ultimately having the case against them dropped is Jarryd Hayne (whose case was eerily similar to that of de Belin in the way it played out and ultimately concluded).
It gets even more complicated when the policy interacts with a finding of guilt. Recent Newcastle Knights acquisition Dylan Brown was stood down in 2024 following five sexual touching charges but allowed to resume playing after he plead guilty to two of the charges with police dropping the other three. It is unknown whether the three abandoned charges were so abandoned because they couldn’t be proven or to facilitate Brown’s guilty plea to the other two. The NRL gets around this conundrum by lifting the no-fault stand down and then penalising the player in the ordinary way via the Integrity Unit, but these examples call into question the effectiveness of the policy.
There are many schools of thought, but two take centre stage.
On one view, the NRL, as an employer, has a right (and perhaps a duty) to protect its image, deter bad behaviour, and prevent people accused of serious criminal offences from representing the sport.
The converse view is that players like Jack de Belin and Taylan May have been punished for crimes they deny they ever committed and were ultimately not found guilty of.
Does the NRL need to re-think its position and convene a tribunal of people with specialised knowledge to determine when a player ought be stood down?
And what then of complainants? A not guilty finding or dismissal of charges is not a declaration that the complainant is a liar in the same way that a not-guilty verdict is not a declaration of innocence.
These are desperate questions with unclear answers. How can the NRL protect its image, and more importantly, abhor the perpetration of serious crimes while at the same time not undermining presumption of innocence?
Daniel McKinnon
Since graduating with two degrees in Law and Commerce from the University of Wollongong, Daniel’s spent over ten years solving a wide range of legal problems for the people of Western Sydney.