Mattock's Big Day (Thursday)

[Leesoh]

Besides, I don't think I clearly said I thought this guy was part of the problem, plus I don't think binding over applies in this type of situation. It can't be used for past events, or I didn't think so, and certainly not for a complaint over a year old.

 

[lazzer]

The fact of the matter is he he was stupid to go out drinking in Leicester City centre so soon after leaving for West Brom. He was also very lucky that the more serious charge was dropped.

 

[bocadillo]

It wasn't in the Mags, Boc.

This was in the Crown Court...

County Courts can bind over as well.

Besides, I don't think I clearly said I thought this guy was part of the problem, plus I don't think binding over applies in this type of situation. It can't be used for past events, or I didn't think so, and certainly not for a complaint over a year old.

You said that he had some culpability. What does this mean if not that he was part of the problem?

No, it can't be used as a 'punishment' for past events. But if the judge thought he was likely to provoke violence in such a way in the future, it does seem to me that a binding order would be appropriate and allowed for.

 

[bocadillo]

The fact of the matter is he he was stupid to go out drinking in Leicester City centre so soon after leaving for West Brom. He was also very lucky that the more serious charge was dropped.

He was even more fortunate that, for whatever reason, the 'perverting the course of justice' charge was not proceeded with.

 

[Real Sharapova]

County Courts can bind over as well.

Not sure about that, the County Court deals with civil matters and is also known as the Small Claims Court. Unless that's a typo and you meant Crown Court, but that would be unthinkable.:icon_wink

 

[RHYDAL]

Pathetic

 

[bocadillo]

Not sure about that, the County Court deals with civil matters and is also known as the Small Claims Court. Unless that's a typo and you meant Crown Court, but that would be unthinkable.:icon_wink

Oh dear. Can I blame it on the spill-chucker. I meant the Crown Court.
:icon_redf

 

[Leesoh]

County Courts can bind over as well.

You said that he had some culpability. What does this mean if not that he was part of the problem?

No, it can't be used as a 'punishment' for past events. But if the judge thought he was likely to provoke violence in such a way in the future, it does seem to me that a binding order would be appropriate and allowed for.

First of all, I was under the impression binding over orders were the jurisdiction of the Magistrates. Having read up in Archbold, yes, the Crown Court can bind over, but only in prescribed circumstances; this doesn't fit into it. In the Crown Court, there is an implied suggestion that if a witness doesn't actually appear in court, his case is not before the court for the purposes of the provisions. Furthermore, where a witness is to be bound over, it is in extreme circumstances, and the CPS should be looking at criminal charges in this instance. There's nothing to suggest his actions warrant criminal charges let alone binding over. Where's your evidence that this man ought to be bound over? What basis are you suggesting it?

Besides, there's guidance that says that nobody other than the defendant should be requested to be bound over.

Secondly, of course him mouthing off played a part; looking at the civil standard of proof, it is likely that this could have an effect on any damages owing. This is a lower standard than in the criminal courts, and you know this. I said I was hopeful that he would be; I should have explained further why, but I won't. Whatever role he played has no bearing in the criminal case against Mattock. If it did, then Mattock would have been able to run with a defence of self-defence on the original charge of assault.

He was even more fortunate that, for whatever reason, the 'perverting the course of justice' charge was not proceeded with.

I said after the PCMH that this would be dropped.

 

[Feriol]

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

Judge Michael Pert QC told the 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."

The Judge plainly veiwed his wages, proffession, and his perfectly legal descision to leave leicester as significant. And suggests the people giving the stick were not responsible for their actions.

Why should being paid well, being a footballer, and changing employer mean he should be more able to handle it than anyone else?

In the eyes of the law this should have been two individuals in a club, not an upset fan and a well paid footballer. By the above quotes the judgement was clearly clouded.

 

[bocadillo]

There's nothing to suggest his actions warrant criminal charges let alone binding over. Where's your evidence that this man ought to be bound over? What basis are you suggesting it?

Did you read my previous reply?

 

[Leesoh]

The Judge plainly veiwed his wages, proffession, and his perfectly legal descision to leave leicester as significant. And suggests the people giving the stick were not responsible for their actions.

Why should being paid well, being a footballer, and changing employer mean he should be more able to handle it than anyone else?

Are you being obtuse on purpose?

The point is that stick is part and parcel of the game. Footballers are recompensed for this. If you were earning £10k a week, and some beered up chav gave you a mouthful, would you not laugh at him, even inwardly, and put it down to jealousy? I would.

Of course the decision to leave Leicester is significant; if he was still a City player, he wouldn't be abused for leaving.

The judge never said the man who started it all was not responsible for his actions.

In the eyes of the law this should have been two individuals in a club, not an upset fan and a well paid footballer. By the above quotes the judgement was clearly clouded.

He was treated fairly. The comments the judge made were part of the judicial telling off. I saw the same judge deliver an almost identical dressing down a year ago (different circumstances, of course). Mattock's pay and status were not part of the sentencing; I posted the guidelines earlier in the thread.

Did you read my previous reply?

Yes.

 

[Lako42]

Are you being obtuse on purpose?

The point is that stick is part and parcel of the game. Footballers are recompensed for this. If you were earning £10k a week, and some beered up chav gave you a mouthful, would you not laugh at him, even inwardly, and put it down to jealousy? I would.

Of course the decision to leave Leicester is significant; if he was still a City player, he wouldn't be abused for leaving.

The judge never said the man who started it all was not responsible for his actions.



He was treated fairly. The comments the judge made were part of the judicial telling off. I saw the same judge deliver an almost identical dressing down a year ago (different circumstances, of course). Mattock's pay and status were not part of the sentencing; I posted the guidelines earlier in the thread.



Yes.

So at what level of earnings does a person begin to be able to shrug off abuse easier than others, I just need to know in case I find myself in a similar scenario, is it a bracketed system where certain reactions are allowed depending on which bracket of earnings you find yourself in?

 

[fitz]

So at what level of earnings does a person begin to be able to shrug off abuse easier than others, I just need to know in case I find myself in a similar scenario, is it a bracketed system where certain reactions are allowed depending on which bracket of earnings you find yourself in?

I'm pretty sure I'm poor enough to not shrug off abuse. Its going to be a fun week with that in mind

 

[Leesoh]

So at what level of earnings does a person begin to be able to shrug off abuse easier than others, I just need to know in case I find myself in a similar scenario, is it a bracketed system where certain reactions are allowed depending on which bracket of earnings you find yourself in?

Fair enough, Joe Mattock was justified twatting a few people in a nightclub. Now, can you explain why to anyone who thinks that he got off lightly and isn't serving time?

Thanks.

 

[Leesoh]

People are focusing far too much attention on the Judge's comments. This is normal when sentencing; Judges tell defendants off. They don't just pass sentence and leave it at that, there is some kind of judicial dressing down to emphasise the point.

Mattock's status and salary form no part of the sentencing. I posted the Guidelines earlier in the thread, which detail the factors that lead to either a lesser or a heavier sentence, and it doesn't mention earnings in there.

Can we now get over it?

 

[beaumontfox]

No dammit!:icon_razz

 

[Kingy_85]

This idiot has just sped past my Dad in town in his 100k car. Dad said he has never seen anyone with such a huge ego. He "got out of his car like a celebrity superstar" and walked down the street "like a cowboy".

Lol - burn

 

[Lako42]

This idiot has just sped past my Dad in town in his 100k car. Dad said he has never seen anyone with such a huge ego. He "got out of his car like a celebrity superstar" and walked down the street "like a cowboy".

Lol - burn

Mabe he had just been bummed?

 

[Leesoh]

"Stuart Driver, defending, said: "The fact he is a famous footballer gives him no advantage in this court room at all.

"In life it gives him opportunities and luxuries but it also brings with it unwanted attention and that is something he is going to have to learn to live with."

Same barrister, this time defending Andy Carroll. Practically the same speech he used with Mattock.

 

[H T B]

Out of interest, where is he nowadays in the pecking order at WBA, and will he be making an appearance at the mighty Walker's stadium tomorrow night?