Jarryd Hayne has been taken into jail after having his bail revoked as he waits to learn his jail term after being convicted of sexually assaulting a woman.
Hayne will be sentenced to a prison term when he faces sentencing proceedings on May 8 after he was found guilty of sexually assaulting a woman in 2018.
Hayne was earlier this month convicted by a jury of a sexually assaulting a woman at her Newcastle home on NRL grand final night on September 2018.
The 35-year-old last week walked out of Sydney’s Downing Centre District Court on conditional bail before he faces sentencing proceedings in less than four weeks.
However, the Director of Public Prosecutions made a Supreme Court detention application to immediately place him behind bars.
Hayne and his lawyers arrived at the Supreme Court on Friday morning to fight the application before Justice Richard Button.
Justice Richard Button agreed to the Crown prosecution’s detention application and ordered that Hayne be taken into custody immediately.
Hayne was emotionless throughout the two hour and 45-minute hearing but he became emotional as he embraced his wife Amellia Bonnici.
The pair hugged for several minutes before he was handcuffed.
Ms Bonnici sobbed as he was taken from the court.
“You’re innocent,” one female supporter yelled.
“Stay strong big fella,” another male supporter said.
Under NSW law, a person who is found guilty of an offence and will be sentenced to a full time jail term must be refused bail unless they can establish special or exceptional circumstances.
The first application to detain Hayne was made in the District Court and successfully opposed by his barrister Margaret Cunneen SC, who told the court the former Parramatta fullback was “too high-profile” to be sent to prison in the midst of major media coverage.
Judge Turnbull allowed Hayne to remain on bail to help his family get sorted before sentence proceedings on May 8.
In the Supreme Court on Friday, Ms Cunneen argued that Hayne should remain on bail because of a combination of factors including that he faced “oppressive” conditions in protective custody if he were taken to jail immediately.
“It’s 25 days in isolation when it’s not required, it’s not called for,” she said.
She also argued media reporting had been disproportionate and that he and his wife had been subjected to “toxic” abuse on social media.
She described the “vitriol” against her client as being “absolutely extraordinary”.
“There is something about this case that .. has incited the most toxic responses on social media that are out of proportion to the circumstances of this case.”
She argued that it was an “exceptional case” and that the granting of bail for a “very short time” was justified.
Hayne will face sentence proceedings in less than four weeks where is expected to be taken into custody.
“It is accepted… we all agree that it is inevitable that Mr Hayne will go into custody,” Justice Button asked
“Yes your honour,” Ms Cunneen replied.
Hayne has twice been found guilty by a jury.
Following his first guilty verdict, he spent nine months in jail before he last year had his previous conviction quashed on appeal.
He is once again expected to appeal his latest conviction in the Court of Appeal and continues to maintain his innocence.
And Ms Cunneen argued that Hayne had been on bail for four-and-a-half years without incident during three trials and an appeal.
She further submitted that he did not represent a danger to the community.
However, Crown prosecutor Brett Hatfield argued it did not amount to exceptional or special circumstances which justified him remaining on bail.
Mr Hatfield argued many prisoners could be managed in protective custody.
More to come.
