It wasn't in the Mags, Boc.
This was in the Crown Court...
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.
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.
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_winkCounty Courts can bind over as well.
Pathetic
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
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?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.
He was even more fortunate that, for whatever reason, the 'perverting the course of justice' charge was not proceeded with.
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."
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?
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.
Did you read my previous reply?
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?
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?
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
P | Pld | Pts | |
1 | Leicester | 46 | 97 |
2 | Ipswich | 46 | 96 |
3 | Leeds Utd | 46 | 90 |
4 | Southampton | 46 | 87 |
5 | West Brom | 46 | 75 |
6 | Norwich City | 46 | 73 |
7 | Hull City | 46 | 70 |
8 | Middlesbro | 46 | 69 |
9 | Coventry City | 46 | 64 |
10 | Preston | 46 | 63 |
11 | Bristol City | 46 | 62 |
12 | Cardiff City | 46 | 62 |
13 | Millwall | 46 | 59 |
14 | Swansea City | 46 | 57 |
15 | Watford | 46 | 56 |
16 | Sunderland | 46 | 56 |
17 | Stoke City | 46 | 56 |
18 | QPR | 46 | 56 |
19 | Blackburn | 46 | 53 |
20 | Sheffield W | 46 | 53 |
21 | Plymouth | 46 | 51 |
22 | Birmingham | 46 | 50 |
23 | Huddersfield | 46 | 45 |
24 | Rotherham Utd | 46 | 27 |