NRL star's wife learns her fate after punching a teenage girl and a woman in wild footy brawl
The wife of NRL star Josh Papalii has been convicted of assault and handed a good behaviour order for 15 months following her involvement in a wild brawl at a suburban women's rugby league game last year.
Mesepa Selesa was charged with two counts of common assault following the incident in July of 2024 at a footy match featuring the West Belconnen Warriors and the Bungendore Kangaroos.
In CCTV footage previously shown in the ACT Magistrates Court, Selesa can be seen taking to the field and becoming involved in an altercation with a player, 17, who she pushed, punched and forcefully dragged by the hair in front of numerous shocked onlookers.
The pair were separated by other spectators before another woman lunged at Selesa, who responded by grabbing her, pulling a jersey over her head, striking her and pulling her towards the ground.
The women were then separated by footy fans at the ground.
Selesa - soon to be a mother of four - was banned from attending grassroots footy for a decade from the Canberra Region Rugby League last year following the incident - with her court date to follow.
Anthony Williamson, Selesa's defence barrister, asked the court recently to dismiss the charges due to his client's mental impairment at the time, which he said was caused by the recent autism diagnosis of her son.
In court on Wednesday, Magistrate Alexandra Burt said she accepted Selesa was suffering from a degree of mental impairment at the time of the incident - but wouldn't dismiss the charges.
'In my view, it is at about the mid-point,' Magistrate Burt said.
The court was also read impact statements from the older victim as well as her mother.
The victim described the 'serious and ongoing impact' of the incident, including an inability to carry out routine daily activities for weeks afterwards.
She also stated she had been a passionate rugby league player - but that has changed following the attack.
The victim's mother wrote about the after-effects for her grandson, who witnessed the violent assault.
'My five-year-old grandson was heartbroken,' the statement read. 'My grandson didn't understand why his mum was beaten up.'
During sentencing, Magistrate Burt acknowledged Selesa had entered early guilty pleas, but still opted to impose a lengthy good behaviour order, the ABC reported.
'I accept she has taken responsibility, and I should give her the benefit of an early plea,' she said.
'I accept she is genuinely and deeply remorseful.'
Magistrate Burt made it clear to the court that she would not treat Selesa 'any differently because of the apparent profile of her husband.'
The court also heard Canberra Raiders NRL coach Ricky Stuart provided Selesa a character reference, attesting to 'unwavering support' of her husband and children.
After ruling a prison term of imprisonment was excessive, Magistrate Burt imposed a good behaviour order of 15 months - with six months of supervision by Corrective Services.
The term of supervision was deferred until November this year due to Selesa being 38 weeks pregnant with her fourth child.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
14 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Explosive defence argument revealed about why Erin Patterson got sick before any of her lunch guests - as the prosecution case is picked apart
Erin Patterson 's early onset of illness after serving deadly beef Wellingtons to her lunch guests was brought on by her preparation of the meal, a jury has heard. On Wednesday, Patterson's barrister Colin Mandy, SC continued to outline his client's defence against claims she deliberately served poisoned pastry meals to the relatives of her estranged husband Simon Patterson. Patterson, 50, has pleaded not guilty to the murders of Don and Gail Patterson, and Gail's sister, Heather Wilkinson. They died after consuming death cap mushrooms served in beef Wellingtons during lunch at her Leongatha home on July 29, 2023. Only Pastor Ian Wilkinson survived the lunch, in what Crown prosecutor Dr Nanette Rogers, SC on Monday suggested had been a big mistake. The jury has previously heard Ms Patterson claimed to have become ill shortly after the fateful lunch while her guests became sick much later, around midnight. 'There's a sensible reason for that, because in the morning, several hours before the guests arrived, she was stirring and tasting the duxelle,' Mr Mandy told the jury. 'She was preparing that part of the meal. She was tasting it and that's why she added the dried mushrooms to it. So at least a few hours before anyone else ate any, she had had some.' The jury has heard prosecutors claim that Patterson was never sick from what she ate at the lunch and had simply pretended to be, so as to cover-up her alleged crime. Dr Rogers told the jury medical tests revealed Patterson had no signs of death cap poisoning, unlike her guests who suffered severe symptoms, including organ failure. She argued that Patterson fabricated symptoms, such as vomiting after eating cake, to appear sick like her guests. 'We suggest that if the accused had truly vomited ... that is a detail she would have shared with medical staff,' Dr Rogers said. 'The fact that she never made any mention of it should cause you to seriously doubt this claim and we suggest, reject ... [this claim] as a lie.' Mr Mandy said Patterson's claim that she vomited after the lunch ought be treated as truthful. The court heard Patterson claimed she had vomited shortly after the lunch ended, around 2.45pm. 'Now if that was a lie, members of the jury, to encourage you to think that the poison had all left her body, she surely would've said to you that it happened as soon as the guests left,' Mr Mandy said. Mr Mandy also suggested Patterson's evidence that she couldn't remember what was in her vomit ought also be treated as the truth. 'She can't be more precise about the contents of her stomach. If she was lying, if she was lying to you, she would say, ''oh look, when I threw up, I could clearly recognise pastry and meat and mushrooms in there. Absolutely categorically it all came up'',' Mr Mandy said. 'If she was lying, that's what she'd say. But instead she says, 'I don't know, it's vomit'. If she was lying, she would've said, ''I threw up immediately and I could clearly see everything''. She didn't say that to you.' Mr Mandy further suggested Patterson did not become as sick as her lunch guests due to a number of significant factors. He said expert evidence suggested people who consumed the same amount of toxin could react in different ways. 'People can eat the same meal, some develop a higher grade, some develop a lower grade of the severity of the illness,' Mr Mandy said. He told the jury there could have been a variation in toxicity from one person's portion to another. And some people have different reactions upon consuming toxins, he said. 'So some people have a better toxic response than others. Yes. So depending on an individual's tolerance to that particular toxin or their physiological response that may be different,' Mr Mandy said. Expert evidence further suggested the age of the individual could also play a factor as could the weight of the person. 'Obviously weight is a factor,' Mr Mandy said. 'As you know, Erin weighed over a hundred kilos. Age is a factor. She's significantly younger than the other guests.' Mr Mandy accused the prosecution of providing 'misleading impressions' to jurors during Dr Rogers' closing address. 'So Dr Rogers yesterday in her closing argument, invited you to think about what you would do in this situation if this was really just a horrible accident,' he said. 'And what the Crown was asking you to do is to engage in an exercise which might be dangerous and seductive, but it's not appropriate because it involves hindsight reasons. 'And hindsight reasoning is dangerous because it distorts how we evaluate decisions and actions that occurred in the past.' Mr Mandy further accused lone lunch guest survivor Ian Wilkinson of providing the jury incorrect evidence when he described Patterson eating her meal off a different coloured plate. 'It has to be the case that Ian Wilkinson is wrong about what he said. It makes no sense logically that you would use that method to deliver up an unpoisoned parcel, but otherwise, on all of the evidence, he's wrong; honestly mistaken,' Mr Mandy said. He also said Mr Wilkinson was wrong about the colour of Patterson's other plates, which he had described as being grey. 'Erin and Simon were far more familiar with the crockery in the house than Ian was, and so we submit to you that you would have to find, on a proper and analytical examination of that evidence, that he wasn't right about those plates. Honestly mistaken,' Mr Mandy said. Mr Mandy also claimed it would have made more sense for Patterson to simply mark the 'safe Wellington' on the pastry rather than serve it on a different coloured plate. We submit to you there is only one logical way of getting around that problem if this was your plan, and that would be to mark the unpoisoned one, it's wrapped in pastry, in some way, so that you can recognise it and differentiate it from the others,' Mr Mandy said. 'Easy to do, pastry, in which case you would not need different coloured plates.' He urged the jury to consider why his client would have 'lured' her lunch guests to lunch with a tale about a false cancer diagnosis if they did not discuss the issue until after they had all eaten the Wellingtons. 'On the Crown case, her object had already been achieved,' he said. 'The only rational conclusion … is the lie about cancer has absolutely nothing to do with the intention to kill, if there was one.'
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Beauty therapist, 35, dodges jail after attacking FIVE police officers, treating them like 'punch bags' and spitting at them, court hears
A beauty therapist has avoided jail after she assaulted five officers, spat at them and even hit one with a 'donkey kick'. Lucy Theunissen, 35, treated police officers like 'punch bags' in a shocking sustained attack after she caused a blazing row at a Chinese takeaway in Basingstoke, Hants last year. The mother-of-three walked free from Winchester Crown Court after Judge Rufus Taylor who stopped short of imposing a custodial sentence because of her disabilities. The sentencing provoked outrage from Hampshire Police Federation, which represents the rank-and-file and criticised the decision not to jail Theunissen. The court heard Theunissen, a qualified masseuse and beautician, first attacked constables at a Chinese takeaway when 999 was called on her because she was drunkenly abusing customers. Then, in front of her six-year-old child and his friend, she swore and shouted before launching assault on officers by kicking out and trying to bite them while resisting arrest. When back-up arrived at Woo's Chinese Takeaway, the mother-of-three kicked another officer's shin. The assault continued in the back of a police van as she spat at the driver, only for it to land on the protective glass. At the police station, Theunissen 'donkey kicked' a police officer in the torso, the court heard. She then she smacked one officer in the head when they tried to remove her mobile phone in a custody cell. After initially denying the charges, the beautician eventually pleaded guilty to assaulting an emergency worker and criminal damage. The defendant, who sobbed in court as the charges were read out, was sentenced to a two-year community order, with 20 rehabilitation activity requirement days for the incident which happened on the evening of April 11, 2024. She must also pay £100 compensation to each of the five officers involved as well as a victim surcharge and a 60-day curfew. Theunissen has three sons, aged 15, 14 and seven, who were not present in court. An impact statement read out on behalf of PC James Pawley said: 'I come to work to serve the community and I wish to do it without fearing assault. 'For too long police have been treated as punching bags for people to take their anger out on. 'The mental anger of this sort of incident will undoubtedly stay with me and I do not enjoy telling my loved ones that I have been assaulted at work. 'I am angry that she felt the necessity to assault me. What she did was not ok and will never be ok.' Justin Johnson, defending, said: 'Miss Theunissen has expressed remorse for what happened. She has apologised to one of the officers and said she is willing to apologise to the others for what happened. 'It was an overreaction from a previous negative experience with the police. 'She had recently suffered the bereavement of her grandmother, one of the few relatives she was in contact with after she left home aged 16. 'I accept that this passes the custodial threshold but I believe it could be suspended due to her low risk to the public.' Judge Rufus Taylor concluded: 'You lashed out, donkey kicked and spat at these officers. It is a pretty bad episode. 'There is a high level of culpability here as it is an instance of multiple prolonged assaults. 'The whole situation is aggravated by the fact it was in front of your son and his friend. 'This case really warrants a custodial sentence but I will step back from that because of your problems.' Upon hearing of the result Spencer Wragg, Chair of the Hampshire Police Federation, said: 'No police officer should come to work expecting to be assaulted. 'No family should expect their loved one to come home with injuries sustained at work as part of the job. 'Being spat at is vile, being struck and kicked whilst answering a call from the public simply isn't acceptable. 'It's not always just the physical injury that affects officers and the psychological impact of incidents can take a lot longer to recover from. 'I am concerned about the message that this sentence gives to officers who are out policing the streets of Hampshire and Isle of Wight today.'
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
The vile reason a convicted rapist whose brutal torture of a 22-year-old woman left her permanently disfigured is appealing his SEVEN life sentences
A man who raped and tortured a woman for weeks has appealed his multiple life sentences, claiming he was not credited for his efforts to stop the victim from dying. Nicholas John Crilley was handed seven life sentences by a Queensland judge in 2020 after pleading guilty to 62 offences including grievous bodily harm, deprivation of liberty, torture and 18 counts of rape. Crilley's treatment of the woman, aged 22 at the time, in Brisbane in June 2017 left her permanently disfigured. He was arrested eight days after his offences following a dramatic pursuit through the city, during which he rammed police vehicles and carjacked an elderly woman. All three justices of the Court of Appeal on Wednesday said they had concerns about whether Crilley had genuine remorse. 'Even when he rings the ambulance, he does not say this is someone who for 23 days has been burned and abused and starved ... and she is likely to die,' Justice Thomas Bradley said. 'He said she had taken a turn for the worse and he did not know what was wrong ... to call that saving her life is a big stretch.' Justice David Boddice said there were arguments for Crilley wanting his victim to survive so she could suffer more. 'There are actual statements made by him in the course of it that he wanted to disfigure her so she was not attractive to other men,' he said. 'This was about maiming her for later in life.' Justice Bradley said Crilley's letter to the sentencing judge expressing remorse was 'disturbing' and referred to himself 28 times. Court of Appeal President Debra Mullins said the letter suggested Crilley had a personality disorder. 'A fair reading of the letter is that it is self-centred,' Justice Mullins said. Defence barrister Craig Eberhardt told the justices that his client's offences were 'horrendous' and showed 'incredible cruelty'. 'Our submissions do not change the character of the offending. We accept entirely that this remains in the worst category of this type,' he said. 'If (Crilley) had not called an ambulance, therefore saving her life, if he had not pleaded guilty and had cross-examined (the victim) at trial, if he was not remorseful, there would not be a complaint about the sentence imposed.' The justices heard Crilley acted against his own interests by not letting the victim die, which would have made it difficult to later convict him on multiple counts. Crown prosecutor Michael Lehane said there was evidence that Crilley thought the victim was so injured she would never be able to testify against him. 'She had not been conscious for three days. His thought was she could not speak,' he said. 'There was no consideration that she would be a critical prosecution witness.' Mr Lehane said the sentencing judge had considered Crilley's guilty plea. 'The nature of the offending simply overwhelmed these particular mitigating features and warranted life imprisonment,' he said. The justices reserved their judgment, which will be handed down at an undetermined date. Justice Mullins thanked Mr Eberhardt and Crilley's legal team. 'It's important that counsel take briefs that are very difficult matters, as this one was,' she said. Lifeline 13 11 14
