Roosters considering legal action.

[Roosterfarian]

If the CLUB is considering legal action then clearly this means that Pearce will not be sacked.

[redwhiteblue]

My 50 cents:
1) There's no tort of 'breach of privacy' in Australia. Bedwetter's allowed to make videos of whatever he wants and share them around, so long as it's not pron and the like. The cops weren't of the opinion that this was bestiality.
2) 'Breach of confidence'... the ALRC has summed it up better than I can (http://www.alrc.gov.au/publications/...ons-confidence). Essentialy he'd be claiming there's an equitable obligation.

For #2 I think a smart lawyer could have a good crack at it. My lay opinion on the matter is that you'd have to sue News Ltd or Channel 9 for a breach of confidence... which the NRL would looooove us for doing :P

I'm not smart enough to think of an obligation that might get over the line. Call me narrow, but the way I see it, being a celebrity doesn't protect you in any special ways. But this is equity, so what do I know? I'd love to see a silky smooth legal argument on the matter would give me the jisms.

The media are not the ones going to be sued. It will be the individual who filmed Mitchell without his prior consent with the sole intent of onselling the footage for personal gain. That is why all 'contestants' on those bogan reality TV shows all have to sign contracts and waivers. The pervert who did the filming can also allegedly be heard in the background bragging how 'this will end his career'. Malicious intent will be pretty easy to prove in this case. I know the law firm which Mitchell has hired previously and they are certainly one of the best around.

[ism22]

The media are not the ones going to be sued. It will be the individual who filmed Mitchell without his prior consent with the sole intent of onselling the footage for personal gain. That is why all 'contestants' on those bogan reality TV shows all have to sign contracts and waivers. The pervert who did the filming can also allegedly be heard in the background bragging how 'this will end his career'. Malicious intent will be pretty easy to prove in this case. I know the law firm which Mitchell has hired previously and they are certainly one of the best around.

I don't think you'd bother suing the guy - doubt he has any money.

[John Corey]

Good luck with that. The Roosters are a million to one to take any legal action.
Better off trying to piss into the wind.

[stringaz]

Well you never know, but they would most likely be focused on the next 27 weeks coming up and hopefully a nice epilogue to said weeks😁

[redwhiteblue]

I don't think you'd bother suing the guy - doubt he has any money.

Suing someone is very rarely about money. It's about sending a message back to the perpetrator telling them that their behaviour was unacceptable. It will make them and others think twice about trying to take a similar route. Look how Princess Diana and Charlotte Dawson ended up. Hounded to their deaths by insensitive and intrusive actions by people wanting money and their 15 minutes of fame.

[Johnny.]

The Dog Rooter should have learnt his Latin - cave canem dominus. Beware of the dog owner.

[The Brain]

The Dog Rooter should have learnt his Latin - cave canem dominus. Beware of the dog owner.

Maybe Pearce could of went on a double date with Joel Monaghan instead

[Andrew Walker]

If the CLUB is considering legal action then clearly this means that Pearce will not be sacked.

I completely agree I will go further and say this is the club trying to justify and get others support for the decision they are about to make on his future at this club. They are playing the Mitchell is the victim mentality in this

[redwhiteblue]

I still don't think that perverts should be able film anyone, public figures or otherwise, with the sole intent of making money and possibly ending their career, without facing repercussions themselves. I'm sure there were thousands of people making fools of themselves on Australia Day, or any other day of the week for that matter, who weren't filmed, weren't shamed and publicly villified like a serial killer and then subsequently hounded out of the country. At what point to we start pushing back on these parasites and leeches?

[Tommy Smith]

I still don't think that perverts should be able film anyone, public figures or otherwise, with the sole intent of making money and possibly ending their career, without facing repercussions themselves. I'm sure there were thousands of people making fools of themselves on Australia Day, or any other day of the week for that matter, who weren't filmed, weren't shamed and publicly villified like a serial killer and then subsequently hounded out of the country. At what point to we start pushing back on these parasites and leeches?

Very well said.

Pearce acted like a fool and disrespected his club. But that's where it ends.

The scum who filmed the incident however, is a low life opportunistic piece of filth who should face charges; lest our society plum to new depths. What he did simply cannot be considered acceptable.

[Andrew Walker]

I still don't think that perverts should be able film anyone, public figures or otherwise, with the sole intent of making money and possibly ending their career, without facing repercussions themselves. I'm sure there were thousands of people making fools of themselves on Australia Day, or any other day of the week for that matter, who weren't filmed, weren't shamed and publicly villified like a serial killer and then subsequently hounded out of the country. At what point to we start pushing back on these parasites and leeches?

I dont like the fact that someone filmed this But this was done in THEIR own home where Pearce was a GUEST Not only that but if you see the footage Pearce looked directly in the phone camera and said I dont even care anymore then proceeded to have his fun with the dog He knew he was being filmed and still did what he did Oh and Mitch wasnt hounded out of the country it was a matter of convenience him leaving when he did Got away from all that testing that was coming his way

[eddie]

I still don't think that perverts should be able film anyone, public figures or otherwise, with the sole intent of making money and possibly ending their career, without facing repercussions themselves.

Despite my anti-Pearce stance I agree wholeheartedly with your opinion.
Not sure where we stand with privacy laws on this, but if we consider the amateur film-makers actions as acceptable, it does open pandora's box.

[Andrew Walker]

Despite my anti-Pearce stance I agree wholeheartedly with your opinion.
Not sure where we stand with privacy laws on this, but if we consider the amateur film-makers actions as acceptable, it does open pandora's box.

The main reason I dont totally agree with RWB here is the minute I saw the footage I realised Pearce knew he was being filmed before he simulated his act with the dog

[redwhiteblue]

I dont like the fact that someone filmed this But this was done in THEIR own home where Pearce was a GUEST Not only that but if you see the footage Pearce looked directly in the phone camera and said I dont even care anymore then proceeded to have his fun with the dog He knew he was being filmed and still did what he did Oh and Mitch wasnt hounded out of the country it was a matter of convenience him leaving when he did Got away from all that testing that was coming his way

The filming was not done by the owner of the home. It was done by another guest who was heard in the background saying they can end his career by selling this footage. Mitchell had no idea this was going on as he was too drunk. Do you think that was giving permission? His mother took him out of the country possibly because she was too afraid of what would happen to him if left to his own devices. Ryan Tandy anyone? You shame someone, push them to the brink and sit back and see what happens..