When Mr Hale was cross-examined initially by Mr Eaton QC, he emphasised that he was running from the top of the goal square area for the ball and that his eyes were on the ball, he was not watching the boundary line. Mr Hale had also stated that he was not interfered with by any opposition player and that he had effectively got away from his direct opponent. He could not recall actually taking the mark, and did not believe that the umpire had signalled that the ball was out of bounds. The difficulty with the own evidence on this issue plaintiff’s is perhaps well illustrated by the following exchange in cross examination: it go out on the full? I marked it and I landed on the fence. “Did Yes? I got my hands on it and I landed on the fence. I understand that. But did it go out on the full before you got your hands to it? No. On the other hand, you where the boundary line was in relation don’t know to you when attempting to mark it? Yes. you’re Is that correct? Pardon? You where the boundary line was when you attempted to mark don’t know the ball? No, I don’t. got no idea where - the distance that you were from the fence And you’ve at the time when you attempted to mark the ball? I have gone for wouldn’t the mark if it was going to get kicked over the fence out of the I’d known way. To the question, please. You had no idea where the fence line was when you attempted to mark the ball? No.” Mr Hale was taken to answers he had given to interrogatories in this proceeding. These answers had been affirmed by Mr Hale on 12 October 2015. In substance the answers given by the plaintiff at that time varied from the evidence he had given in this proceeding in the following manner: The earlier answers describe the events leading up to the incident in following terms: I attempted to mark it before it was called on the “… ‘out full’. Players from the opposing team also attempted to mark the ball at the same time.
When Mr Hale was cross-examined initially by Mr Eaton QC, he emphasised that he was running from the top of the goal square area for the ball and that his eyes were on the ball, he was not watching the boundary line. Mr Hale had also stated that he was not interfered with by any opposition player and that he had effectively got away from his direct opponent. He could not recall actually taking the mark, and did not believe that the umpire had signalled that the ball was out of bounds. The difficulty with the plaintiff’s own evidence on this issue is perhaps well illustrated by the following exchange in cross examination: “Did it go out on the full? I marked it and I landed on the fence. Yes? I got my hands on it and I landed on the fence. I understand that. But did it go out on the full before you got your hands to it? No. On the other hand, you don’t know where the boundary line was in relation to you when you’re attempting to mark it? Yes. Is that correct? Pardon? You don’t know where the boundary line was when you attempted to mark the ball? No, I don’t. And you’ve got no idea where - the distance that you were from the fence at the time when you attempted to mark the ball? I wouldn’t have gone for the mark if I’d known it was going to get kicked over the fence out of the way. To the question, please. You had no idea where the fence line was when you attempted to mark the ball? No.” Mr Hale was taken to answers he had given to interrogatories in this proceeding. These answers had been affirmed by Mr Hale on 12 October 2015. In substance the answers given by the plaintiff at that time varied from the evidence he had given in this proceeding in the following manner: The earlier answers describe the events leading up to the incident in following terms: “… I attempted to mark it before it was called ‘out on the full’. Players from the opposing team also attempted to mark the ball at the same time.
halejudgment.docx