Mattock's Big Day (Thursday)

[Leesoh]

I thought the same.

As a footballer he will have to expect it (although in an ideal world it shouldn't matter) but even that shouldn't be taken into consideration in court. All men should be equal in the eyes of the law.

Where does it say he was treated more or less favourably?

 

[Lboro fox]

No it wasn't. First of all, it was said that Mattock was sober. Secondly, I think people are missing the point entirely. The complainants were not painted in any favourable light at all. The judge has criticised Mattock's reaction to the situation. If it was perfectly legal to smack gobby, pissed up twunts, then there'd be a lot more violence in town at weekends.

Mattock gets a suspended sentence:

Quote:
A Premier League footballer walked free from court on Thursday after admitting lashing out at four people in a nightclub.

West Brom player Joe Mattock, 20, was given a suspended sentence for punching two men and two women in Liquid Envy in Church Gate, Leicester, on August 30, 2009.

Leicester Crown Court heard that Mattock, who was 19 at the time, hit out after he was given "grief" over a transfer from Leicester.

The Leicester-born player, who is currently sidelined by an ankle injury, joined West Brom last August for £1million, causing anger among many Leicester fans.

The defender, of Grove Road, Leicester, pleaded guilty to a charge of affray at Leicester Crown Court in July.

On Thursday, at the same court, he was handed 10 months' detention, suspended for two years. He was also ordered to complete 150 hours of unpaid work, and to pay £1,500 costs.

Judge Michael Pert QC told the footballer: "You plainly worked hard at your craft and were a successful professional footballer.

"The plain fact of the matter is you were earning what most people would regard as a king's ransom.

"If the price of that is to take some stick in a nightclub in your home city when you had left Leicester for another club, frankly you should have been able to handle it.

"It's plain from what we have seen that you were not able to handle whatever was said to you on that occasion and your behaviour was disgraceful."

"Late-night violence in the city centre is always treated seriously by this court," the judge said.

He told Mattock he would not be awarding compensation to his victims, but added: "You are a very wealthy young man and your victims can pursue you for proper compensation in another court, and that is what I think they should do."

The incident, described by the judge as an "explosive few moments", was captured on CCTV cameras in the Liquid Envy nightclub.

The court heard that Mattock got talking to one of the victims at the bar, when her boyfriend approached him and was seen to say something to him, sparking Mattock to throw a punch.

He then also hit the woman, and CCTV footage showed him hitting another woman and man.

Prosecutor James Thomas told the court the footballer left the club "fairly swiftly", then swapped his T-shirt with a friend to avoid being spotted.

But two days later, on September 1, Mattock handed himself in to police.

"During the course of that interview he said he had been having some grief during the course of that evening from a female about moving from one club to another," Mr Thomas said.

"The defendant had played for Leicester City and had recently transferred to West Bromwich."

Mr Thomas said Mattock told officers he had hit the first man with the palm of his hand and claimed he was then hit from behind, prompting him to lash out with his head down.

He said it was only afterwards that he realised he had hit a woman.

The prosecutor told the court all four victims were knocked to the ground. Some suffered cut lips, while one of the women had a bruised cheekbone and a black eye.

Mattock was originally due to stand trial charged with four counts of assault and doing an act tending and intended to pervert the course of justice.

But today not-guilty verdicts were recorded in all five counts, as he had pleaded guilty to affray.


http://www.sportinglife.com/football...&TEAMHD=soccer

Originally posted by Leigh in a different thread. Why would a judge that believes that one pissed up twat provoked another pissed up twat into hitting him encourage the persuing of a cash claim in a civilian court.

I don't agree that drunken violence is acceptable, but i do think that you can help yourself by not provoking these situations.

 

[Leesoh]

Originally posted by Leigh in a different thread. Why would a judge that believes that one pissed up twat provoked another pissed up twat into hitting him encourage the persuing of a cash claim in a civilian court.

I don't agree that drunken violence is acceptable, but i do think that you can help yourself by not provoking these situations.

FFS, Mattock wasn't pissed! I was in that court room, I heard his brief tell the court Mattock hadn't been drinking, I heard the Prosecution say the same. I also don't need the report quoting at me; for a start, it doesn't tell you everything that was said in court, and the selected quotes do not give you the context in which they were told to the court.

In mitigation, it was said that Mattock had been given stick the moment he left Leicester. The judge's comments are therefore based along the lines that:-

- going out in Leicester so soon after leaving, knowing that his move wasn't well received in the city was silly;
- continuing to remain on a night out when he'd been given grief for most of the evening, not just by the complainant, but by people who were no party to the incident, was silly;
- thumping people is not the right way of dealing with drunken idiots, to do so was silly;
- the nature of his job, and the fact he's paid a lot to do it, should make it easier to walk away from such situations.

I don't think you understand the civil claim. Mattock wasn't provoked into hitting someone so that they can make money. Ordinarily, a victim of a crime is compensated for their loss/injuries from a central pot, for want of a better word. It was set up, because most offenders would not be able to afford to pay damages through the civil courts, which would be the preferred route (and it's not to say you can't try it). Rather than using this, the complainants should sue for damages instead, as Mattock can afford to compensate them. Whilst the burden and standard of proof isn't as high as in the criminal courts, the civil courts look at the role that the complainant, or claimant, had in in the incident, and rule accordingly.

 

[Lboro fox]

FFS, Mattock wasn't pissed! I was in that court room, I heard his brief tell the court Mattock hadn't been drinking, I heard the Prosecution say the same. I also don't need the report quoting at me; for a start, it doesn't tell you everything that was said in court, and the selected quotes do not give you the context in which they were told to the court.

In mitigation, it was said that Mattock had been given stick the moment he left Leicester. The judge's comments are therefore based along the lines that:-

- going out in Leicester so soon after leaving, knowing that his move wasn't well received in the city was silly;
- continuing to remain on a night out when he'd been given grief for most of the evening, not just by the complainant, but by people who were no party to the incident, was silly;
- thumping people is not the right way of dealing with drunken idiots, to do so was silly;
- the nature of his job, and the fact he's paid a lot to do it, should make it easier to walk away from such situations.

I don't think you understand the civil claim. Mattock wasn't provoked into hitting someone so that they can make money. Ordinarily, a victim of a crime is compensated for their loss/injuries from a central pot, for want of a better word. It was set up, because most offenders would not be able to afford to pay damages through the civil courts, which would be the preferred route (and it's not to say you can't try it). Rather than using this, the complainants should sue for damages instead, as Mattock can afford to compensate them. Whilst the burden and standard of proof isn't as high as in the criminal courts, the civil courts look at the role that the complainant, or claimant, had in in the incident, and rule accordingly.

I appreciate that I wasn't in court and that I am not in possession of all of the facts of the case. The points you have made above I agree with bar the 4th one. The nature of a persons job means that they ought to walk away from these situations, unfortunately, it has no bearing on whether it is easier to do so or not.

As for how much of a role the pissed up bloke had in it all, we will see once the civilian settlement has happened. My suspicion is that Mattocks wages and public profile will have a greater influence on the amount of cash he has to cough up.

It is my opinion that the judge should have sentenced Mattock in the way he has and then warned the muppet that provoked from provoking random strangers in the future.

 

[Macky]

In what way?

Are you suggesting that his status should have meant he had the perfect excuse to use his fists to resolve a situation? Surely when he made that decision, and it was pointed out by his own brief, as a sober individual and not a pissed up lout like the people he dealt with, he crossed a line.

No, I'm not. My suggestion is that a person's wealth, status and income, or lack of, is of no concern to any Judge.

 

[Leesoh]

I appreciate that I wasn't in court and that I am not in possession of all of the facts of the case. The points you have made above I agree with bar the 4th one. The nature of a persons job means that they ought to walk away from these situations, unfortunately, it has no bearing on whether it is easier to do so or not.

As for how much of a role the pissed up bloke had in it all, we will see once the civilian settlement has happened. My suspicion is that Mattocks wages and public profile will have a greater influence on the amount of cash he has to cough up.

It is my opinion that the judge should have sentenced Mattock in the way he has and then warned the muppet that provoked from provoking random strangers in the future.

Compensation/damages is determinate on pain, suffering, and loss of amenity, not on the means available to the defendant. There are guidelines for these types of cases.

As for the behaviour of the complainant who started it all, he wasn't there. Neither was he on trial. Of course he has some culpability, and this will be reflected in his damages, hopefully.

No, I'm not. My suggestion is that a person's wealth, status and income, or lack of, is of no concern to any Judge.

If that is the case, then perhaps his brief shouldn't have brought it up, neither should it have been part of the pre-sentence report etc.

 

[Macky]

If that is the case, then perhaps his brief shouldn't have brought it up, neither should it have been part of the pre-sentence report etc.

I agree.

 

[RHYDAL]

No, I'm not. My suggestion is that a person's wealth, status and income, or lack of, is of no concern to any Judge.

I disagree. If they followed your advice, then the weight of evidence put forward by police officers would carry the same weight as evidence from a junky tea leaf.

 

[Macky]

I disagree. If they followed your advice, then the weight of evidence put forward by police officers would carry the same weight as evidence from a junky tea leaf.

Well, not really the point I was making, but, knowing some of the outright lies told by some police officers under oath, I don't find your argument too convincing.

 

[RHYDAL]

Well, not really the point I was making, but, knowing some of the outright lies told by some police officers under oath, I don't find your argument too convincing.

I understand your point was not quite as extreme, but all relevant circumstances should be taken into account by judges and juries when finding a verdict and, if guilty, during sentencing.

 

[Macky]

I understand your point was not quite as extreme, but all relevant circumstances should be taken into account by judges and juries when finding a verdict and, if guilty, during sentencing.

Absolutely, of course. I was just declaring bullshit on the judge in this case

 

[RHYDAL]

Absolutely, of course. I was just declaring bullshit on the judge in this case

Thanks for clearing that up Harbs.:icon_wink

 

[Macky]

Thanks for clearing that up Harbs.:icon_wink

Pathetic

 

[Leesoh]

I agree.

So taking out his personal circumstances, how does one then mitigate for their lay client?

You can't separate the two, it just doesn't make sense.

 

[Macky]

So taking out his personal circumstances, how does one then mitigate for their lay client?

You can't separate the two, it just doesn't make sense.

I've no idea what you're talking about now.
The only point I'm making is that regardless of how idiotic Mattock was, I can't see what relevance his personal wealth has to any of it.

 

[Leesoh]

I've no idea what you're talking about now.
The only point I'm making is that regardless of how idiotic Mattock was, I can't see what relevance his personal wealth has to any of it.

Don't know how it works in Ireland (I thought it was a similar system to ours, to be fair), but when a person is due to be sentenced, they enter a "plea in mitigation" to the court. It's basically a chance to beg for the lesser sentence a court can give. You get to hear some right sob stories at this point....

On top of that, a defendant has to provide his means, so any fines and/or costs can be worked out. So this is why it's hard to separate the two issues.

 

[bocadillo]

As for the behaviour of the complainant who started it all, he wasn't there. Neither was he on trial. Of course he has some culpability...

Presumably though the magistrates could have bound him over even though he wasn't on trial.

 

[Leesoh]

Presumably though the magistrates could have bound him over even though he wasn't on trial.

If they thought he was a problem, he'd have been dealt with, surely.

 

[bocadillo]

If they thought he was a problem, he'd have been dealt with, surely.

You were there (in the courtroom) and you clearly thought he was part of the problem. If the magistrates felt that he was part of the problem, even though he was not charged with anything, they could have chosen to make a binding over order.

 

[Leesoh]

You were there (in the courtroom) and you clearly thought he was part of the problem. If the magistrates felt that he was part of the problem, even though he was not charged with anything, they could have chosen to make a binding over order.

It wasn't in the Mags, Boc.

This was in the Crown Court, the judge made no comment on the actions of the first complainant. I wouldn't have done either. It was said that he couldn't remember what he said to Mattock, and Mattock himself only thought the guy was giving him stick about the move.