Court case involving Albion players - the (new) only thread allowed - ALL found NOT GUILTY

[Hillian1]

Yeah yeah yeah, interesting story, but... did you think he was guilty?

Might have.

 

[Krusty]

The jury have been sent home for the day. They will continue deliberations at 10:15 tomorrow morning.

 

[soistes]

The jury have been sent home for the day. They will continue deliberations at 10:15 tomorrow morning.

Courts seem to work a really short day, and have a decent lunch break.

 

[Bra]

if found guilty do you think the club will sack dunk and barker??

 

[Papa Lazarou]

if found guilty do you think the club will sack dunk and barker??

Not sure. Maybe

 

[BensGrandad]

if found guilty do you think the club will sack dunk and barker??

Possible that they may have no option as you cannot play when inside, that is not to say they are guilty or will go to prison if found guilty just one of many possibles.

 

[Bra]

Possible that they may have no option as you cannot play when inside, that is not to say they are guilty or will go to prison if found guilty just one of many possibles.

the club would be in a difficult position if they are found guilty and receive some form of community punishment (i have no idea of sentencing guidlines), particularly with everything, although that should not make a difference

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

if found guilty do you think the club will sack dunk and barker??

Well clearly no one knows, but it's not hard to see that the club ( and sponsors perhaps ) will not want to be associated with anyone on the sex offenders register.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

That's what I thought, just checking there wasn't another.

A couple more days and this should be over.

I thought there was another and can't remember who it was. There were definitely 6 arrests, Tommy was ruled out the same day but there was another who was questioned but not charged. I think it was Sampayo as he shared a house which was mentioned in the trial and in this article.
http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/10429108.Albion_captain_admits_he_should_have_calmed_teammates_down/

 

[Not Andy Naylor]

I keep imagining that when we finally gain Academy status for our youth programme, the headed notepaper will read something like: "Brighton & Hove Albion Academy - doing our best to keep your sons out of the courts (but not always succeeding)"

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

I keep imagining that when we finally gain Academy status for our youth programme, the headed notepaper will read something like: "Brighton & Hove Albion Academy - doing our best to keep your sons out of the courts (but not always succeeding)"

I heard that the on-site accommodation is going to be called "Jury's Out".

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

I thought there was another and can't remember who it was. There were definitely 6 arrests, Tommy was ruled out the same day but there was another who was questioned but not charged. I think it was Sampayo as he shared a house which was mentioned in the trial and in this article.
http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/10429108.Albion_captain_admits_he_should_have_calmed_teammates_down/

You are right, Sampayo was cleared a few weeks into the investigation.

Only 2 of the original 6 accused ( some falsely accused ) still with the albion.

 

[jamesy's]

Is anyone following this

 

[madinthehead]

Not on the argus website so far today...

 

[Very Blue Tits]

Not on the argus website so far today...

However there is currently a lovely picture of Conor Maynard (no, me neither) and a story about an escaped raccoon returning, so the newsroom must be pretty busy

 

[Vegas Seagull]

Court case involving Albion players - the (new) only thread allowed

I keep imagining that when we finally gain Academy status for our youth programme, the headed notepaper will read something like: "Brighton & Hove Albion Academy - doing our best to keep your sons out of the courts (but not always succeeding)"

Pathetic post

 

[El Turi]

Court case involving Albion players - the (new) only thread allowed

It's probably been mentioned but what happens if the jury can't reach a verdict again?

 

[Goldstone1976]

It's probably been mentioned but what happens if the jury can't reach a verdict again?

The CPS have to decide whether to have a third go. I think that's pretty rare - they have to consider whether it's in the public interest to spend taxpayers' money prosecuting for a third time when the first two trials ended 0-0.

 

[Triggaaar]

Here:

http://ukcrime.wordpress.com/2013/02/20/what-happens-if-juries-cant-agree/

What if the jury at a re-trial can’t agree – can they keep on re-trying the defendant forever?

This is obviously fairly unlikely, but it does happen. There is a convention that the Prosecution get two goes and then that’s it. If they can’t persuade two juries that a defendant is guilty, then they offer no evidence (as set out above).

This is not a fixed rule of law – Parliament has not set out in an Act of Parliament that this is the case. For that reason, there is no absolute bar on the CPS having a third go.

One example of this is the case of Bell [2010] EWCA Crim 3. The Court did note (para 46) that “We doubt the value of offering further guidance on the circumstances in which a second re-trial may be appropriate. We shall confine ourselves to reminding the Crown that the jurisdiction which permits a second re-trial after two jury disagreements in circumstances like the present must be exercised with extreme caution. The broad public interest in the administration of criminal justice leads us to the clear view that a second re-trial should be confined to the very small number of cases in which the jury is being invited to address a crime of extreme gravity which has undoubtedly occurred (as here) and in which the evidence that the defendant committed the crime (again, as here), on any fair minded objective judgment remains very powerful.“

In practice, the most important factor would be the seriousness of the case – on a charge of murder it is very likely that there will be a re-trial, if the matter is a minor one (such as shoplifting), then they leave it at that and ‘offer no evidence’ meaning that the defendant is acquitted on the direction of the Judge (known as a Not Guilty verdict under s17 after s17 Criminal Justice Act 1967). This has the same effect as, and is as ‘good’ as, a verdict of Not Guilty from a jury.

 

[father_and_son]

I keep imagining that when we finally gain Academy status for our youth programme, the headed notepaper will read something like: "Brighton & Hove Albion Academy - doing our best to keep your sons out of the courts (but not always succeeding)"