Steven Gerrard,court case.

[Pretty pink fairy]

Lets hope so

have you ever done time

 

[Barrel of Fun]

Stevie G is above the law

I thought Stevie G was the law in Liverpool, with his fixers and so on.

I trust we will have a 'Free the Liverpool One' and Black Armbands, if he is forced to do some porridge, from the ever faithful Liverpool fans.

Maybe he will remember his roots if he spends time with his former contemporaries.

 

[beorhthelm]

makes things clearer. its actually a lesser offense and easier to prove (though isnt "you looking at me" bascially affray then?).

so then why is the prosecution going on about the assault and such which isnt the actual charge?

 

[The Spanish]

I thought Stevie G was the law in Liverpool, with his fixers and so on.

I trust we will have a 'Free the Liverpool One' and Black Armbands, if he is forced to do some porridge, from the ever faithful Liverpool fans.

Maybe he will remember his roots if he spends time with his former contemporaries.

just wait until the provo lovers north of the border latch onto this. Justice for the Southport 1. You can see the yellow ribbbon and scarf laying mawkish love in.

Another scouse mick shows his true colours, wrapped up in villainy, a cuckold, cowardly thug, who does not turn up for England like his mate Carragher because his loyalties lie the other side of the Irish Sea, unsurprisingly.

Life, goes on day after day.

A boil on this country, that city.

 

[clapham_gull]

makes things clearer. its actually a lesser offense and easier to prove (though isnt "you looking at me" bascially affray then?).

so then why is the prosecution going on about the assault and such which isnt the actual charge?

Not really from what I understand, but we really need a solicitor on the case. There used to be one who posted on here, but he's not been on here for ages. Rogger Mellie ?

Lesser offence than what ? Depends on the type of assault.

I'd imagine affray is actually more difficult to prove to be honest.

Don't think that what's happened here is that they've decided to go for the lesser affray charge because they couldn't make the assault charge stick.

They are different offences for different things.
Affray is the public order offence, assault the offence against an individual. They obviously by their nature often go hand in hand and he was originally charged with both.

Since affray is basically a punch up in a public place that causes distress to bystanders, of course the details of the punch up are going to be the main subject of investigation.

 

[The Spanish]

Lesser offence than what ? Depends on the type of assault.

Don't think that what's happened here is that they've decided to go for the lesser affray charge.

Affray and assault are two different offences but often go hand in hand. He was originally charged with both.

Since affray is basically a punch up in a public place that causes distress to bystanders, of course the details of the punch up are going to be the main subject of investigation.

Affray is the public order offence, assault the offence against an individual.

mate you are like rumpole of the bailey. we have all seen the footage, and we have all been in pubs with pissed up blokes when it has kicked off.

wihout the legal eagle aspect it is clear that

he was throwing his weight around

he was pissed

his mate smacked the bloke who had offended him

he joined in and gave him a few digs as he knew numbers were on his side

whatever the boring legal aspects of this are, we have all seen this a 1000 times. f***ing hell.

whether he is guilty of affray, assault or whatever zzzzzzzz you can debate the tits off, but in the eyes of the British public who have spent any time in the real world, he is guilty of being a complete c unt. But we knew that anyway.

 

[clapham_gull]

mate you are like rumpole of the bailey. we have all seen the footage, and we have all been in pubs with pissed up blokes when it has kicked off.

wihout the legal eagle aspect it is clear that

he was throwing his weight around

he was pissed

his mate smacked the bloke who had offended him

he joined in and gave him a few digs as he knew numbers were on his side

whatever the boring legal aspects of this are, we have all seen this a 1000 times. f***ing hell.

whether he is guilty of affray, assault or whatever zzzzzzzz you can debate the tits off, but in the eyes of the British public who have spent any time in the real world, he is guilty of being a complete c unt. But we knew that anyway.

That's all sorted then

 

[The Spanish]

That's all sorted then

exactly. no need to tie yourself in knots. the evidence is there


scouse

mick

under performs for england

small forehead

big tie knot in court like bowyer and woodgate and signing autographs



the hanging judge is being wheeled out as we speak!

 

[Billy the Fish]

He'll never go to prison, first offence is like a get out of jail free card.

It's hard to see how he'll get away with it though, seeing as every other member of his group has pleaded guilty. Either they've had the crappest legal advice in the world, or most likely there is substantial evidence against them. Given the nature of the offence that surely must implicate gerrard as he is clearly shown on CCTV getting involved in what the others were doing.

 

[The Spanish]

He'll never go to prison, first offence is like a get out of jail free card.

It's hard to see how he'll get away with it though, seeing as every other member of his group has pleaded guilty. Either they've had the crappest legal advice in the world, or most likely there is substantial evidence against them. Given the nature of the offence that surely must implicate gerrard as he is clearly shown on CCTV getting involved in what the others were doing.

this is what makes me laugh mate. how many digs does he give him, four or five. clapham is determined to get to the bottom of it legally and by 12 good men and true, but back in the real world we can all see it for what it was a pissed up assault on some donut who didnt like the way he spoke to him, as he knew he had his pals with him. No more no less.

 

[clapham_gull]

this is what makes me laugh mate. how many digs does he give him, four or five. clapham is determined to get to the bottom of it legally and by 12 good men and true, but back in the real world we can all see it for what it was a pissed up assault on some donut who didnt like the way he spoke to him, as he knew he had his pals with him. No more no less.

Not sure what point you are trying to make, I was simply pointing out he wasn't charged with assault and that affray is in some case a more serious charge.

Have you had a few.... ?

( I'm quite interested why the assault charge didn't stick though... )

 

[Billy the Fish]

this is what makes me laugh mate. how many digs does he give him, four or five. clapham is determined to get to the bottom of it legally and by 12 good men and true, but back in the real world we can all see it for what it was a pissed up assault on some donut who didnt like the way he spoke to him, as he knew he had his pals with him. No more no less.

They should've just said that in court and save everyone a lot of time

They probably can't actually prove who did or didn't hit him or who did the damage so they just charge them all with a public order offence. Slaps on the wrist all round, don't do it again lads.

 

[clapham_gull]

They should've just said that in court and save everyone a lot of time

They probably can't actually prove who did or didn't hit him or who did the damage so they just charge them all with a public order offence. Slaps on the wrist all round, don't do it again lads.

Again, I'm not sure it's a "just charge them with.....". Different offences, he was originally charged with both.

Personally I'm just hoping the rumours that the fight was all over the playing of a Phil Collins track is true.

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

I think you should all listen to Clapham here

In answer to some of the questions posed thus far:

-Gerrard is charged with affray, which is not the same as assault (public order offence as opposed to an offence against the person).

-the maximum sentence for affray summarily (in the magistrates' court) is 6 months, on indictment (in Crown Court, which I think is the case here, without looking) is 3 years. Nobody ever gets maximum sentences for anything, however, let alone a first conviction, as I assume this would be for Gerrard IF found guilty. Probably a trivial fine and a bit of community punishment.

-I don't know where this stuff comes from about having to prove someone entered a premises with the intent to do something to commit affray. The specific definition, should you be THAT interested, is thus:

a person is guilty of affray if he uses or threatens unlawful violence towards another and his conduct is such as would cause a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene to fear for his or her personal safety

Which basically means that the prosecution only have to prove the defendant behaved towards someone in such a manner that a hypothetical person looking on might be afraid. You don't have to prove a physical assault or even that someone looking on WAS afraid. Gerrard would have a nailed on defence to assault in that he could say he punched the other bloke because he was defending himself. His defence against the charge of affray will be slightly weaker because, from looking at the photos (and I haven't heard any of the other evidence so far so have no idea what that does to his case) he appears to be part of a group of blokes behaving in a threatening manner. He certainly doesn't appear to have detached himself from what his mates were doing as might be expected from a victimised celebrity who just wants to stay out of trouble.

As a famous footballer, however, it's no surprise he's opted for Crown Court trial: he clearly fancies his chances with a jury of Scousers as opposed to three magistrates.

OK fine

You raise the point I made about coming on the premises to cause an affray.

All I have said is what I was instructed by a barrister. He maintained that affray was a higher charge than assault and would be hard to prove under the circumstances, not dis-similar to Gerrards.

The law in this case, Common Law, is based on purely on common sense and precedent I would therefore suggest a barrister, who has studied law might and would know this,his direction would be learned.

You say ONLY has to prove an action that a person might feel afraid. Well that is a damned lot harder to prove than someone missing a tooth!

Assault can happen under self protection, so you are wrong, if it is considered that force beyond reason was used.

You say, and I do not know he opted for Crown, with a possibility of a higher sentence, did he? Or due to the seriousness was it recommended for Crown?

I'm sorry but you have angered me. I have never been on the wrong side of the law, never even been given so much as a parking ticket but I for one would never ask a laymen, which you are about the law. People study law for years so as to judge, prosecute and defend. This is truly is the problem if they give more powers to the police to be prosecution, judge and jury. Many, many police officers I know,(and I know a few) basically know no more about the law than anyone else. A very dangerous situation.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

When all you need to do is convince a jury, it's often enough to run a defence along the lines of "the bastard deserved a good slapping".

This may not impress judges or magistrates, but they aren't allowed in the jury room.

 

[Twinkle Toes]

I didn't actually mind the diving bastard before, but he's gone right down in my estimation after this.

 

[itszamora]

I think it hinges on whether the violence Stevie G admits using is considered unlawful or not. Because if it's not (and self-defence is a valid defence in court if you can get it to stick) he can't be guilty according to the definition of the offence.

 

[severnside gull]

now that the leaglities seem to have been resolved........................what is the tariff for being a complete ****?

 

[NMH]

Well having watched the BBC report I can see absolutely NOTHING that would be worthy of jail for. I'm just about the most placid person you could meet and hate aggressive people who go out to have a scrap but you would see exactly that incident in every town in the country every weekend.

Common assault is unfortunately common, and so there's little discrimination between a couple of yobs both going at each other, and one yob attacking a hapless person who asked for none of it. That this victim appears to fall into the latter category and has posted a case of an unprovoked attack by many on one, should see the victim's time made at least worthwhile.
The onus IS on the court to make examples here. The rest have pleaded guilt - after backing up their England-player hero, and should face the music based on that admission. But Gerrard's plea of innocence in the face of CCTV and his pals' admissions is begging for him to be made an example of. Plus he HAS to get a bigger penalty than his pals now.

Bottom line is, he is extremely thick to fight this case - he has to lose.
He'll also pay loads to do it, and probably more in compensations, damages and court costs.
He's once, twice, three times an idiot for arguing the case against him.

On a karma level, he should be getting his well-past-time deserves, as this misuse of fame and misguided leadership is common among football players who often have adulation and protection in yob culture. He'll be used to pushing people around and getting them to compromise themselves. As a 'leader' to some more idiots, he's not used to getting told "no" to anything - and his wealth still gets him free gifts and concessions everywhere he goes; "no mate, you don't pay in my bar, you're Stevie Gerrard - please come back and grace my establishment with your custom".

I hope the court throws the book at him like they should. Maybe too old for ASBO? Not for a criminal record.

 

[clapham_gull]

Common assault is unfortunately common, and so there's little discrimination between a couple of yobs both going at each other, and one yob attacking a hapless person who asked for none of it. That this victim appears to fall into the latter category and has posted a case of an unprovoked attack by many on one, should see the victim's time made at least worthwhile.
The onus IS on the court to make examples here. The rest have pleaded guilt - after backing up their England-player hero, and should face the music based on that admission. But Gerrard's plea of innocence in the face of CCTV and his pals' admissions is begging for him to be made an example of. Plus he HAS to get a bigger penalty than his pals now.

Bottom line is, he is extremely thick to fight this case - he has to lose.
He'll also pay loads to do it, and probably more in compensations, damages and court costs.
He's once, twice, three times an idiot for arguing the case against him.

On a karma level, he should be getting his well-past-time deserves, as this misuse of fame and misguided leadership is common among football players who often have adulation and protection in yob culture. He'll be used to pushing people around and getting them to compromise themselves. As a 'leader' to some more idiots, he's not used to getting told "no" to anything - and his wealth still gets him free gifts and concessions everywhere he goes; "no mate, you don't pay in my bar, you're Stevie Gerrard - please come back and grace my establishment with your custom".

I hope the court throws the book at him like they should. Maybe too old for ASBO? Not for a criminal record.

He hasn't been charged with assault....