Steven Gerrard,court case.

[Mtoto]

Yes, but as I said usually - I don't imagine the Judge will disagree. We've only seen the Gerrard CCTV, from what I understand the fisty cuffs continued after that.

Funny place for it to happen, I was having a beer very near there the previous night. I was also in the pub they visited before going to lounge.

It's usually quiet as a mouse round there. Imagine Eastbourne in the winter.

The judge can't disagree. He's the judge, not the jury, though he can take account of aggravating or mitigating circumstances when it comes to the sentence.

They've pleaded guilty, therefore they are guilty. They can't have another go now Stevie G's been let off.

 

[beorhthelm]

They've pleaded guilty, therefore they are guilty.

sorry, but thats bollocks. or at least, its not the way it works otherwise the prisons would be fall of nutters.

 

[Billy the Fish]

Like I said, shoddy legal advice

Does anyone know at what point the others pleaded guilty? Unless they admitted affray at the station in order to just get a caution it doesn't make sense. Why would they go to crown court and then admit to it, it would've just been done at majistrates court surely?

 

[Mtoto]

sorry, but thats bollocks. or at least, its not the way it works otherwise the prisons would be fall of nutters.

I'm struggling to understand this point. If you are charged with an offence, and when asked whether you plead guilty or not guilty you reply "guilty", then in the eyes of the legal system you are guilty and that's the end of it. You can change a plea of not guilty to guilty, but you can't do it the other way around.

And I'm not sure the advice to the rest of them was that poor. Their solicitors would have taken the view that in order to take a chance on a Scouse jury letting you walk because you're the Liverpool captain, you need to be the Liverpool captain. They weren't, so they couldn't (and don't forget a guilty plea is always taken into account when it comes to sentencing). He was, so he could.

 

[The Spanish]

I'm struggling to understand this point. If you are charged with an offence, and when asked whether you plead guilty or not guilty you reply "guilty", then in the eyes of the legal system you are guilty and that's the end of it. You can change a plea of not guilty to guilty, but you can't do it the other way around.

And I'm not sure the advice to the rest of them was that poor. Their solicitors would have taken the view that in order to take a chance on a Scouse jury letting you walk because you're the Liverpool captain, you need to be the Liverpool captain. They weren't, so they couldn't (and don't forget a guilty plea is always taken into account when it comes to sentencing). He was, so he could.

finally, a common sense post on this!

 

[beorhthelm]

I'm struggling to understand this point. If you are charged with an offence, and when asked whether you plead guilty or not guilty you reply "guilty", then in the eyes of the legal system you are guilty and that's the end of it.

my point, and its a general one, is that it is not the end of it until actually convicted, and even then the verdict is subject to being overturned in the future. innocent people sometime admit gulit, for whatever reason. So, it may be in this example that the judge decides they have pleaded gulity to cover for their friend and find them not guilty when it comes to giving a verdict. it may be that they've already been convicted and only await sentence.

what ever the details, the statement "They've pleaded guilty, therefore they are guilty." is false. see "miscarriage of justice".

 

[dougdeep]

Next time I go in a pub, I'll pick out someone weaker than me that looks a bit rough. Then I'll give him three good punches. If it's legal for a footballer, it must be legal for me.

 

[Mtoto]

Yes, but you have ignored the words "in the eyes of the legal system". Of course, people are sometimes found guilty of a crime when they are innocent (although it is much more unusual for someone to actually plead guilty when they are in fact innocent).

Cases can be appealed if significant new evidence comes to light, or there is a strong reason to think that evidence presented at the original trial (which only happens in the event of a not guilty plea) was seriously flawed. "Our famous mate got off", however, does not qualify as significant new evidence, and there won't be any in future, because the scandal of this trial isn't that the innocent pleaded guilty, but that despite all the evidence, the guilty got away with it.

 

[Sam]

Gerrard was never going to get a fair trial in Liverpool! All he needed was 4 out of the 12 jury to be Liverpool fans and he would be found not guilty. Which was the case.

If he had been trialled in Manchester or Preston or Chester or any other Crown Court near Liverpool then he would have been found guilty.

 

[Garry Nelson's Left Foot]

Gerrard was never going to get a fair trial in Liverpool! All he needed was 4 out of the 12 jury to be Liverpool fans and he would be found not guilty. Which was the case.

If he had been trialled in Manchester or Preston or Chester or any other Crown Court near Liverpool then he would have been found guilty.

Would it have been a 'fair' trial if it had been held in Manchester?

I think it would be very difficult to get a 'fair' trial anywhere in England. Just look at NSC, everyone appears desparate to find him guilty.

 

[clapham_gull]

The judge can't disagree. He's the judge, not the jury, though he can take account of aggravating or mitigating circumstances when it comes to the sentence.

They've pleaded guilty, therefore they are guilty. They can't have another go now Stevie G's been let off.

It in the response to the suggestion that after pleading guilty, the judge could techically disagree, believe them to lying and let the person walk away.

Unusual I would have thought.....

 

[Bwian]

Would it have been a 'fair' trial if it had been held in Manchester?

I think it would be very difficult to get a 'fair' trial anywhere in England. Just look at NSC, everyone appears desparate to find him guilty.

Especially the Manc Wanks we have on here.

 

[Mtoto]

It in the response to the suggestion that after pleading guilty, the judge could techically disagree, believe them to lying and let the person walk away.

Unusual I would have thought.....

But if there's a whole gang of them doing it, would that not make them guilty of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice?

 

[Leekbrookgull]

Mtoto,just out of interest,how is a jury made up ? You to me if this case was heard say in Norwich,Bath etc you get my drift i think the result may have been different ?

 

[franks brother]

The bottom line is that Saint Stevie has lost his halo and just shown himself to be the run of the mill boorish footballer, of any club, who thinks they are above the law. He doesn't help himself by the company he keeps but I guess that goes back to his roots and upbringing.
Bet the FA are releived he was not made England captain.

 

[Leekbrookgull]

Frank,not far wrong.

 

[Ernest]

You would NEVER get Frank Lampard ACTING like that

 

[Cheshire Cat]

There are alot of very disappointed Everton fans in Liverpool after the saving of Saint Steven of Scouse

 

[Bwian]

There are alot of very disappointed Everton fans in Liverpool after the saving of Saint Steven of Scouse

How can you tell-they're always disappointed?

 

[Mtoto]

Mtoto,just out of interest,how is a jury made up ? You to me if this case was heard say in Norwich,Bath etc you get my drift i think the result may have been different ?

Hi Leekbrook

I’m certainly no expert, but I’d assume it’s more to do with where and what. For relatively minor cases like this one, it goes to the local court and they pluck the jurors from the electoral roll, so they are always going to be local. As cases get more serious, they will go to more senior courts, and when you get to somewhere like the Old Bailey or Southwark, jurors can come from anywhere in the Greater London area.

But even for less important cases, there must be some procedure for moving the venue if there are concerns about possible jury-tampering. Possible jury bias, of course, is another matter. I’d guess its difficult to take that on board without creating all manner of problems ie. effectively branding the whole city of Liverpool as a bunch of fiddling scallies who can’t be trusted to put their allegiance to LFC aside when a man has been set upon by a gang of pissheads.

I was at the Old Bailey when the jury was selected for the Kieren Fallon trial. They had asked nearly 100 (!) potential jurors to turn up, and then drew names at random. They were all asked if they were regular punters on horse racing, whether they had a Betfair account, and also whether there was a pressing reason they couldn’t spend the next three months sitting on a jury. They went through at least two dozen of them before they got the final 12, and some of them were desperate to come up with excuses to get out of it.

One bloke passed a note to the judge with his excuse and the judge didn’t think it was important enough, so he ordered him to go and sit in the jury box. The man was clearly distraught, so had a little think and came up with something better, which the judge (grudgingly) accepted.

There were plenty of delays when jurors were late on account of trains etc, suggesting that plenty of them were travelling from a good way away to attend.