Benjamin Mendy - City lose case and Mendy awarded £11m in back pay (p168)

[dronefromsector7G]

So once charged nobody can be innocent? Seems a bit unfair to me.

Yep It seems harsh as it’s just that the prosecution couldn’t prove you’re guilty but the doubt is always there re: your innocence

 

[Tim of the Oak]

A persons partying doesn't make them 'not a good guy'. Many people party that way especially at that age with wealth. So what about, for example, Sir Mick Jagger or Mick Hucknell (rag twat) who have had partied the Mendy way, aren't they not good guys then.
As an elite professional footballer he certainly let the side down.

I agree to an extent. Some of Mendy’s views on women left him open to criticism though and I don’t think he’s a nice guy

 

[jaiguruKun]

The police had received several complaints/warnings from neighbours that girls were arriving in taxis to Mendy’s house at all sorts of hours and did nothing about it.
It was a party house and the whole thing was inevitable given the way it appears the girls were treated.
My question is whether Mendy will be able to sue the CPS for lost wages & the time he spent in prison waiting for trial and whether MCFC have a case for recovering his value? Given the amounts involved it would seem likely

The answer to your question is no & the amounts involved are irrelevant.

 

[I'm With Stupid]

Doesn’t matter what he earns pal if he's innocent he's innocent and I hope he gets everything he's owed back

Did the club stop paying him? Presumably if we released him from his contract, we paid him the remainder of it, unless he breached it in some way. Breaking bail conditions would presumably be an example of that.

 

[bigf42]

Were does Mendy stand in terms of the rest of his career or even if Manchester City did the right thing in terminating his contract, 100% does not stay in England and he must feel City let him down and failed him,

The fact that Mendy broke his bail conditions and continued to have parties, and wound up remanded in custody means the club have no obligation to him whatsoever. City did not let him down, he let himself down. He should have kept his head down when charged the first time.

Breaching bail is breaking the law, whether you were innocent of the original charge or not is irrelevant.

 

[Tim of the Oak]

I think it was unanimous on all charges in the end wasn't, at the first trial they couldn't reach a verdict on these latest ones, but this time they have.

This jury only deliberated for 3 hours 15 minutes, which is quite short for a trial like this.

Thanks Cleavers. I couldn’t believe how flimsy the evidence was when following the retrial.

 

[Kippax Street 1880]

Whens the trial date for his Wolves away performance?

 

[balotelli's back pocket]

So once charged nobody can be innocent? Seems a bit unfair to me.

Charges can be dropped. Evidence can be brought to light.

Legally, not guilty means innocent. The rest of us have to make up our own minds.

First you have your trial in a real court, then you spend the rest of your life in the court of public opinion.

It's not fair, but it's the fairest system we've got.

 

[I'm With Stupid]

To be found guilty, the jury has to be certain of your guilt.

To be found not guilty, the jury doesn't have to be certain of your innocence.

Yep, and civil courts only have to rule on balance of probability. So for example, there was a case in Scotland where someone was found not guilty in a criminal case (or maybe it didn't go to trial, I forget), but then found guilty in a civil case and had to pay the victim.

 

[Tim of the Oak]

Charges can be dropped. Evidence can be brought to light.

Legally, not guilty means innocent. The rest of us have to make up our own minds.

First you have your trial in a real court, then you spend the rest of your life in the court of public opinion.

It's not fair, but it's the fairest system we've got.

Then it’s probably good that the public refer to, “innocent until proven guilty”, even if that is not strictly based in fact.