Steven Gerrard,court case.

[Mellotron]

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

Looks like you're going to have to get that tattooed on your forehead Clapham.

I would stick it on mine but there's no space alongside;

"Murray was injured ONCE last year you cretins"

and

"Forster was offside more times than Murray"

 

[Garry Nelson's Left Foot]

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[/I]

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.

1) Who brings a case of affray if no violence has taken place? Is it the 'victim', someone nearby who gets scared, or the police?

2) If an old lady was on the bus and she heard two people talking about a third person who they didn't like and wanted to beat up would that be affray?

3)What constitutes lawful violence?

 

[Aldo]

Best midfielder in the world, most he'll get is a fine,

Stevie Gerrard Is Our Captian.......

 

[severnside gull]

Amy Winehouse in court this morning for "doing a Stevie"


never mind, I'm sure she will get off - she's a celebrity

 

[NMH]

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.

Agree with most of that - except the last part; he didn't so much get involved in what was happening as instigate it.

He won't get a custodial sentence, but the costs will be high and there's going to have to be probation and a criminal record (which can stop a person from travelling freely - i.e. the US do not admit people with a record very easily)

 

[bhaexpress]

Also, he should never play for England again after his prison sentence.

Tony Adams and Ian Wright both did. However it's unlikely he'll go down even if he is found guilty and somehow I doubt that also.

 

[Mellotron]

costs will be high

Costs would be high to you or me, but to £100,000+ a week Gerrard? Really?

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

Amy Winehouse in court this morning for "doing a Stevie"


never mind, I'm sure she will get off - she's a celebrity

Diving in the box ? Interesting

 

[siclean]

anyway lads...whatever you think will/ should happen he said he is SORRY !!! so give some credit the lad !!

 

[siclean]

anyway lads...whatever you think will/ should happen he said he is SORRY !!! so give some credit to the lad !!

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

good job he wan't wearing a stone island jumper ?

 

[severnside gull]

why's that?
does it perhaps carry an automatic jail sentence for being sooooo last year

 

[Bevendean Hillbilly]

Cant be bothered reading the whole thing but I saw last night that the bloke Gerrard clumped was apparently offering a "go quietly" for a few grand option (denied by him now btw) can't help thinking Stevie G would have been better off bunging him when he had the chance.

 

[clapham_gull]

Cant be bothered reading the whole thing but I saw last night that the bloke Gerrard clumped was apparently offering a "go quietly" for a few grand option (denied by him now btw) can't help thinking Stevie G would have been better off bunging him when he had the chance.

Wouldn't have had a bearing on the affray charge, which is a public order offence.

Seeing as the assault charge was dropped, is doesn't have an awful lot of relevance.

 

[Bevendean Hillbilly]

Wouldn't have had a bearing on the affray charge, which is a public order offence.

Seeing as the assault charge was dropped, is doesn't have an awful lot of relevance.

Ah OK. Thanks.

 

[wellquickwoody]

Probably not!

Best lawyers money can buy, probably paid the others to plead guilty, known underworld connections. Is he guilty? Of course, he is Scouse!

 

[SICKASAGULL]

I am most suprised at Gerrards behaviour as I considered he would be less likely than any other player in the premier to be guilty of assault,but he will have to be judged as any of us would be.

 

[Dave the OAP]

hang him

 

[Leekbrookgull]

Suspended sentence,and like someone said. He could well have travel problems ? I/E America ?

 

[Lady Whistledown]

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.

Bloody hell, who rocked your boat?? All I have done is quoted verbatim the law on affray, which doesn't take a barrister or even a qualified legal professional to do, simply someone who either knows that particular paragraph off by heart or has the relevant text in front of them. Why on earth would you take offence at that

Nor have I even started to be "prosecution, judge and jury", unlike a lot of comments already present in this thread, so I fail to see what's remotely "dangerous" about that. I quoted the law (ask your barrister friend if you're not convinced) and suggested from personal experience how a court might view the evidence in front of them. Believe it or not, I happen to think the case is nowhere near as clear cut as a lot of contributors here do, because I've seen enough court cases to know there are endless possible outcomes. I'm in no way condemning Gerrard one way or the other as I haven't paid enough attention to the case.

If you really want to pick holes, you state "the law in this case, Common Law"-well sorry to burst your balloon but you're the one who is wrong here, as neither the offence of common assault (which Gerrard is not charged with) nor the offence of affray (which he is) are common law offences, they are statutory ones.

But you know, carry on...