[Archived] Gerrard Cleared Of Affray

[Jonnolad]

VXR's all round in Huyton then - but I can catagorically state this is just a co-incidence!

Lol that's what I thought - I bet Christmas has come early for the other 5.

[jamiebrfc]

Self defence isn't throwing 3 hard punches IMO, especially when it's you and your mates who've gone to cause trouble in the first place. Self defence is moving out of the way or covering your face.

Well thats just wrong, self-defence can be a pre-emptive strike if you are in fear of immediate violence. Any lawyer will tell you that, not just some expensive one. 3 times seems excessive too, but the jurors and judge obviously didn't agree with us.

As for expecting a civil case.. i'd expect a big sunday newspaper scramble for his story, and his fears to ever go out in public again through fear of another attack etc etc.

[Kelbo]

Jonolad wrote,

Self defence isn't throwing 3 hard punches IMO, especially when it's you and your mates who've gone to cause trouble in the first place. Self defence is moving out of the way or covering your face.

No it is not, in law, self defence can be an act to prevent yourself being attacked or harmed and that includes throwing a punch!!

Many years ago, one evening after playing cricket, I had gone home to bed after the 'after match session ' in the clubhouse,

as it was a double header weekend, I had taken my gear and bat up to the bedroom, my wife heard a noise downstairs during the night and I went downstairs armed with my Cricket bat, as I opened the door, there was this guy who came towards me, I had no Idea if or not he was attempting to get out of the door or to attack me, I played the best shot of the season and cracked him in the face with my bat which resulted in him breaking his jaw in three places.

I was issuued with a summons after the guy made a complaint and it was thrown out of court as I had acted in self defence!!

[super_arran]

Jonolad wrote,

Self defence isn't throwing 3 hard punches IMO, especially when it's you and your mates who've gone to cause trouble in the first place. Self defence is moving out of the way or covering your face.

No it is not, in law, self defence can be an act to prevent yourself being attacked or harmed and that includes throwing a punch!!

Many years ago, one evening after playing cricket, I had gone home to bed after the 'after match session ' in the clubhouse,

as it was a double header weekend, I had taken my gear and bat up to the bedroom, my wife heard a noise downstairs during the night and I went downstairs armed with my Cricket bat, as I opened the door, there was this guy who came towards me, I had no Idea if or not he was attempting to get out of the door or to attack me, I played the best shot of the season and cracked him in the face with my bat which resulted in him breaking his jaw in three places.

I was issuued with a summons after the guy made a complaint and it was thrown out of court as I had acted in self defence!!

after you'd hit him first time did you pull his jumper over the guy's head and smack him a few more times? because "ar stevie" did

[Jonnolad]

Well thats just wrong, self-defence can be a pre-emptive strike if you are in fear of immediate violence. Any lawyer will tell you that, not just some expensive one. 3 times seems excessive too, but the jurors and judge obviously didn't agree with us.

This isn't some cornered down a back alley self defence situation though is it. This is him and his mate going up to cause trouble, because let's be honest, throwing 3 punches that fast clearly looks like someone who was going up with an intention to do something like that in the first place, especially when your mate throws the first punch.

The jury had to be sure beyond reasonable doubt, and a very expensive lawyer can obviously put doubt in there. If it was just on balance though Stevie wouldn't have a chance.

What I can't understand is why did all the others admit affray, when some of them didn't even throw a punch? For them affray was just being in the group causing trouble - that definition didn't seem to hold for Stevie though.

[Hughesy]

Jamie - If some guy smacks you, and then another guy throws several more punches at you, while your still startled from the 1st punch - what would you have to say about it? "oh it's ok because he just joined in, he didn't start it". It's crazy!

[mellison24]

Jonolad wrote,

Self defence isn't throwing 3 hard punches IMO, especially when it's you and your mates who've gone to cause trouble in the first place. Self defence is moving out of the way or covering your face.

No it is not, in law, self defence can be an act to prevent yourself being attacked or harmed and that includes throwing a punch!!

Many years ago, one evening after playing cricket, I had gone home to bed after the 'after match session ' in the clubhouse,

as it was a double header weekend, I had taken my gear and bat up to the bedroom, my wife heard a noise downstairs during the night and I went downstairs armed with my Cricket bat, as I opened the door, there was this guy who came towards me, I had no Idea if or not he was attempting to get out of the door or to attack me, I played the best shot of the season and cracked him in the face with my bat which resulted in him breaking his jaw in three places.

I was issuued with a summons after the guy made a complaint and it was thrown out of court as I had acted in self defence!!

Actually YOU broke his jaw

[Jonnolad]

Jonolad wrote,

Self defence isn't throwing 3 hard punches IMO, especially when it's you and your mates who've gone to cause trouble in the first place. Self defence is moving out of the way or covering your face.

No it is not, in law, self defence can be an act to prevent yourself being attacked or harmed and that includes throwing a punch!!

Many years ago, one evening after playing cricket, I had gone home to bed after the 'after match session ' in the clubhouse,

as it was a double header weekend, I had taken my gear and bat up to the bedroom, my wife heard a noise downstairs during the night and I went downstairs armed with my Cricket bat, as I opened the door, there was this guy who came towards me, I had no Idea if or not he was attempting to get out of the door or to attack me, I played the best shot of the season and cracked him in the face with my bat which resulted in him breaking his jaw in three places.

I was issuued with a summons after the guy made a complaint and it was thrown out of court as I had acted in self defence!!

But had you been in a bar, drunk, being rowdy with your friends, had an argument with the DJ, gone back with your friend to contront the bloke again, your friend then hits the DJ and you then follow in with your cricket bat - do you think the court would have believed you were acting in self defence?

[dazmaz]

Jonolad wrote,

Self defence isn't throwing 3 hard punches IMO, especially when it's you and your mates who've gone to cause trouble in the first place. Self defence is moving out of the way or covering your face.

No it is not, in law, self defence can be an act to prevent yourself being attacked or harmed and that includes throwing a punch!!

Many years ago, one evening after playing cricket, I had gone home to bed after the 'after match session ' in the clubhouse,

as it was a double header weekend, I had taken my gear and bat up to the bedroom, my wife heard a noise downstairs during the night and I went downstairs armed with my Cricket bat, as I opened the door, there was this guy who came towards me, I had no Idea if or not he was attempting to get out of the door or to attack me, I played the best shot of the season and cracked him in the face with my bat which resulted in him breaking his jaw in three places.

I was issuued with a summons after the guy made a complaint and it was thrown out of court as I had acted in self defence!!

thats a completely different issue, sounds like it was a summons for assault not affray, fot thpse that dont know what it is

"In current English Law, affray forms part of the Public Order Act 1986 under section 3. The act states:

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

2. Where two or more persons use or threaten the unlawful violence, it is the conduct of them taken together that must be considered for the purpose of subsection (1)

3. For the purposes of this section a threat cannot be made by the use of words alone.

4. No person of reasonable firmness need actually be, or be likely to be, present at the scene.

5. Affray may be committed in private as well as in public places.

A person suspected of affray is subject to arrest, can be tried either in a Magistrates Court or Crown Court, and faces three years imprisonment and/or a fine on indictment; six months imprisonment and/or a fine summarily"

after you'd hit him first time did you pull his jumper over the guy's head and smack him a few more times? because "ar stevie" did

what gerrard did was wrong, and i belive it was alcohol fueled. maybe he acted in self defence, maybe he didnt, but the big point is we do not and will not know for sure, eye witnesses are never reliable as they all see something different, the CCTV footage isnt great and doesnt show what happened before. we all have to accept the verdict if we are happy with it or not

[Jonnolad]

what gerrard did was wrong, and i belive it was alcohol fueled. maybe he acted in self defence, maybe he didnt, but the big point is we do not and will not know for sure, eye witnesses are never reliable as they all see something different, the CCTV footage isnt great and doesnt show what happened before. we all have to accept the verdict if we are happy with it or not

No we don't. OJ Simpson was found innocent by a jury - does it mean I have to be happy with the verdict?

It doesn't take a genius to see this won't be the end of it - not least because he's a high profile footballer and he has to play in front of opposition fans. Can you see some abuse directed at "ar stevie" over this next season, because I certainly can.

[jamiebrfc]

Jamie - If some guy smacks you, and then another guy throws several more punches at you, while your still startled from the 1st punch - what would you have to say about it? "oh it's ok because he just joined in, he didn't start it". It's crazy!

It's not as black and white as all that.. do you really think if it was so simple that he would have been found not guilty. If it was such a simple case there could be no doubt. All I have said all along is: we don't know the full facts but the Jury and Judge do. Gerrard was found not guilty and the Judge stated it was fair. Judges are more than happy to express their discontent at what they believe to be unsafe verdicts and this Judge did not - he backed up the jurors.

If it happened exactly as you said then Gerrard would not have a leg to stand on in any court in the land, with any legal team behind him, and would have entered a guilty plea at the earliest opportunity in order to get the lowest sentence. Which probably wouldn't have been custodial anyway. I accept that from what has been released in the press that Gerrard seems guilty of affray... but we have not heard the full facts - the court did and he was acquitted. I'm just repeating myself now.

[super_arran]

what gerrard did was wrong, and i belive it was alcohol fueled. maybe he acted in self defence, maybe he didnt, but the big point is we do not and will not know for sure, eye witnesses are never reliable as they all see something different, the CCTV footage isnt great and doesnt show what happened before. we all have to accept the verdict if we are happy with it or not

What I was getting at is that if Gerrard had hit him once and then walked away or stood back from it, then yeh; I could accept the self defence claim, but to hit the guy 3 times whilst pulling his jumper over his head so he can't see is just plain old "having a fight"

[The Prof.]

Well thats just wrong, self-defence can be a pre-emptive strike if you are in fear of immediate violence. Any lawyer will tell you that, not just some expensive one. 3 times seems excessive too, but the jurors and judge obviously didn't agree with us.

As for expecting a civil case.. i'd expect a big sunday newspaper scramble for his story, and his fears to ever go out in public again through fear of another attack etc etc.

Are you from Huyton? The guy lost teeth, he deserves all he can get - remember he never threw a punch and Stevie the little love had five Huyton boys around him - and felt threatened by a middle age bloke walking in his vicinity. I know who will be first on the back of the People Sunday saying how had it was to get through this on 120K a week and all.

He did nothing to stop his mates giving him a street whuppin' either.

Trust me - you'd have gone down!

[jamiebrfc]

For everyone who knows 'the truth' and could have done a better job at proving Gerrard's guilt... Sign up to stop these miscarriages of justice ever happening again!

[The Prof.]

This isn't some cornered down a back alley self defence situation though is it. This is him and his mate going up to cause trouble, because let's be honest, throwing 3 punches that fast clearly looks like someone who was going up with an intention to do something like that in the first place, especially when your mate throws the first punch.

The jury had to be sure beyond reasonable doubt, and a very expensive lawyer can obviously put doubt in there. If it was just on balance though Stevie wouldn't have a chance.

What I can't understand is why did all the others admit affray, when some of them didn't even throw a punch? For them affray was just being in the group causing trouble - that definition didn't seem to hold for Stevie though.

It's called making sure plod gets his quota - think of it like a plea bargain.

[CrazyIvan]

Gerrard, rightly or wrongly, has been found not guilty of the charge of affray. He's not innocent. He's not innocent of hitting the bloke and he's not innocent of behaving like (in my mind) a thug. The charge of affray he is not guilty of. His behaviour on the night is another matter entirely. He hasn't enhanced his reputation in any way and I hope the guy who got hit does take this to civil court.

Gerrard should feel ashamed of himself.

[Jonnolad]

It's called making sure plod gets his quota - think of it like a plea bargain.

Conveniently for ar Stevie it also meant that he was facing a jury alone - if he was in the dock with 5 Huyton boot boys all pleading innocence then I don't think it would have looked favourably on him. I'd hazard a guess his legal team would have told him that as well.

By a massive massive stroke of luck for Stevie though, they all mysteriously pleaded guilty before it came to facing a jury - even though some of them, on the evidence, appeared to be far less guilty than him.

If you gave him the benefit of the doubt you'd say he's a lucky lucky bloke that Steven Gerald and no mistaking.

And Christmas has come early in Huyton of course.

[broadsword]

For everyone who knows 'the truth' and could have done a better job at proving Gerrard's guilt... Sign up to stop these miscarriages of justice ever happening again!

You some kind of legal eagle mate?

[dazmaz]

again alot of people are banging on about assault/GBH or ABH (always get the 2 mixed up) yet those charges where dropped buy the guy attacked.

Affray

In current English Law, affray forms part of the Public Order Act 1986 under section 3. The act states:

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

2. Where two or more persons use or threaten the unlawful violence, it is the conduct of them taken together that must be considered for the purpose of subsection (1)

3. For the purposes of this section a threat cannot be made by the use of words alone.

4. No person of reasonable firmness need actually be, or be likely to be, present at the scene.

5. Affray may be committed in private as well as in public places.

Assault

under British law it is an offence to lay your hand on to another person without their consent. However there are varying degrees of assault which are governed by the seriousness of the injury, the harm done and the circumstances.

ABH/GBH

ABH (actual bodily harm) is viewed as you causing some sort of injury, albeit as minor as a bruise.

GBH (grievous bodily harm) is viewed as causing a serious injury, such as that which affects the victim's quality of life, such as broken bones, wounds etc. GBH is much more serious, and can in theory lead to a life sentence.

the charges gerrard was up against was Affray, is he guilty of Affray, i have no idea as i dont know what happend proir to the incident, for all we know the guy threatened (SP?) Gerrard.

i never said you have to be happy with it, i said you have to accept it, if your happy with the decision or not (meaning unhappy)

[Boz]

For everyone who knows 'the truth' and could have done a better job at proving Gerrard's guilt... Sign up to stop these miscarriages of justice ever happening again!

No criticism towards the cps from me, they did all they possibly could.

Just the system whereby high profile scouse icons such as Stevie G or Ken Dodd are tried at Liverpool Crown Court in front of a jury taken from that locality. It makes a mockery of the English legal system in my opinion. Who knows the Home Secretary may think similar?

[Flopsy]

I wonder what the verdict would have been had the trial been held at Manchester Crown Court?

A public hanging probably

[3rdpillar]

Makes me sick.

[bubblerrovers]

Of course he was going to get off, he's famous. Just like half these celebs we see walking out of nightclubs with 3 grams of coke in each nostril.

[Stuart]

I wonder if Gerrard will get the kind of treatment reserved for Barton at away grounds? Somehow I doubt it. After all Barton is a 'wrong un' and Gerrard is one of the Golden Boys of English Football.

[PAFELL]

If the roles were reversed I wonder what the other guy would have got for hitting Gerrard.

A season ticket for OT