Damocles said:oakiecokie said:Damocles said:He should have turned his back. Or at least had a verbal confrontation rather than following him into the toilets and jumping him.
There's a very easy test to show that this is the correct cause of action and it's that one of them led to prison and the other one led to minor frustration.
Again, if this lad wasn't a mate of yours you'd see this from a completely different point of view.
And had the truth come out I wouldn`t have started this thread.
"Truth".
Or more accurately "truth as told to you by a convicted criminal about the events that led to him becoming a convicted criminal". Everybody in prison is a miscarriage of justice with extenuating circumstances
chris85mcfc said:Ever thought that he might have bottled him?
oakiecokie said:chris85mcfc said:Ever thought that he might have bottled him?
No.Witnesses have claimed that they never saw Anthony enter the toilets with any sort of glass or bottle and although Anthony was wrong in attacking him,I honestly believe that he did not use anything that caused injury apart from head and fists.
Medical and police reports could find NO evidence to support his victims claims.
Prestwich_Blue said:14 months for someone with no previous record, carrying out a presumably unpremeditated assault seems harsh.
What offence was he actually charged with? When you say he pleaded guilty to assault but not to the grassing, I'm assuming these weren't separate offences and that he pleaded not guilty? Or did he plead guilty, meaning a jury wasn't required? I'm not a lawyer but it doesn't sound like he's been well advised based on what you've said.
oakiecokie said:Prestwich_Blue said:14 months for someone with no previous record, carrying out a presumably unpremeditated assault seems harsh.
What offence was he actually charged with? When you say he pleaded guilty to assault but not to the grassing, I'm assuming these weren't separate offences and that he pleaded not guilty? Or did he plead guilty, meaning a jury wasn't required? I'm not a lawyer but it doesn't sound like he's been well advised based on what you've said.
Col,he`s never even had a parking ticket,honestly.I can`t remember the exact wording that is used (something Court) when an individual pleads NOT GUILTY,before a trial and the only persons in the Court were both legal teams,no witnesses,my mate wife and the Judge.
He was originally charged by the police with assault,but then charged with assault with a weapon (a glass/bottle),something which Anthony was never ever going to plead guilty to,for no other reason than it never happened.
The Judge in his summing up claimed that Anthony had deliberately wasted the Courts and Police time by pleading NOT guilty to an attack with a glass,even though medical evidence showed that injuries sustained were from bruising to the face and not the back of the head,as claimed.
Anthony did in his police statement claim that he was guilty of an assault,using head and fists,but the Judge convicted him of assault with a glass/bottle.
I hope some of our learned friends on Blue Moon can remind me what such a case is actually called when a Jury is not used and a Judge makes the be all and end all of a decision.Come on Members of the Bar whats it called ??
cibaman said:Was it a Newton Hearing? That's when a defendant pleads guilty to an offense but disputes the CPS's version of events.
chris85mcfc said:oakiecokie said:Prestwich_Blue said:14 months for someone with no previous record, carrying out a presumably unpremeditated assault seems harsh.
What offence was he actually charged with? When you say he pleaded guilty to assault but not to the grassing, I'm assuming these weren't separate offences and that he pleaded not guilty? Or did he plead guilty, meaning a jury wasn't required? I'm not a lawyer but it doesn't sound like he's been well advised based on what you've said.
Col,he`s never even had a parking ticket,honestly.I can`t remember the exact wording that is used (something Court) when an individual pleads NOT GUILTY,before a trial and the only persons in the Court were both legal teams,no witnesses,my mate wife and the Judge.
He was originally charged by the police with assault,but then charged with assault with a weapon (a glass/bottle),something which Anthony was never ever going to plead guilty to,for no other reason than it never happened.
The Judge in his summing up claimed that Anthony had deliberately wasted the Courts and Police time by pleading NOT guilty to an attack with a glass,even though medical evidence showed that injuries sustained were from bruising to the face and not the back of the head,as claimed.
Anthony did in his police statement claim that he was guilty of an assault,using head and fists,but the Judge convicted him of assault with a glass/bottle.
I hope some of our learned friends on Blue Moon can remind me what such a case is actually called when a Jury is not used and a Judge makes the be all and end all of a decision.Come on Members of the Bar whats it called ??
Pretty certain that 99% of criminal offences are dealt with at Magistrates Courts
chris85mcfc said:oakiecokie said:Prestwich_Blue said:14 months for someone with no previous record, carrying out a presumably unpremeditated assault seems harsh.
What offence was he actually charged with? When you say he pleaded guilty to assault but not to the grassing, I'm assuming these weren't separate offences and that he pleaded not guilty? Or did he plead guilty, meaning a jury wasn't required? I'm not a lawyer but it doesn't sound like he's been well advised based on what you've said.
Col,he`s never even had a parking ticket,honestly.I can`t remember the exact wording that is used (something Court) when an individual pleads NOT GUILTY,before a trial and the only persons in the Court were both legal teams,no witnesses,my mate wife and the Judge.
He was originally charged by the police with assault,but then charged with assault with a weapon (a glass/bottle),something which Anthony was never ever going to plead guilty to,for no other reason than it never happened.
The Judge in his summing up claimed that Anthony had deliberately wasted the Courts and Police time by pleading NOT guilty to an attack with a glass,even though medical evidence showed that injuries sustained were from bruising to the face and not the back of the head,as claimed.
Anthony did in his police statement claim that he was guilty of an assault,using head and fists,but the Judge convicted him of assault with a glass/bottle.
I hope some of our learned friends on Blue Moon can remind me what such a case is actually called when a Jury is not used and a Judge makes the be all and end all of a decision.Come on Members of the Bar whats it called ??
Pretty certain that 99% of criminal offences are dealt with at Magistrates Courts
oakiecokie said:chris85mcfc said:oakiecokie said:Col,he`s never even had a parking ticket,honestly.I can`t remember the exact wording that is used (something Court) when an individual pleads NOT GUILTY,before a trial and the only persons in the Court were both legal teams,no witnesses,my mate wife and the Judge.
He was originally charged by the police with assault,but then charged with assault with a weapon (a glass/bottle),something which Anthony was never ever going to plead guilty to,for no other reason than it never happened.
The Judge in his summing up claimed that Anthony had deliberately wasted the Courts and Police time by pleading NOT guilty to an attack with a glass,even though medical evidence showed that injuries sustained were from bruising to the face and not the back of the head,as claimed.
Anthony did in his police statement claim that he was guilty of an assault,using head and fists,but the Judge convicted him of assault with a glass/bottle.
I hope some of our learned friends on Blue Moon can remind me what such a case is actually called when a Jury is not used and a Judge makes the be all and end all of a decision.Come on Members of the Bar whats it called ??
Pretty certain that 99% of criminal offences are dealt with at Magistrates Courts
A Newton hearing is an unusual form of court trial found in British law. Taking both name and precedent from a landmark 1982 case, R v Newton, a Newton hearing is sometimes requested or awarded in the event that the defendant pleads guilty but disputes the evidence for the crime. If the defense wants to be sentenced on a factual basis that significantly differs from what the prosecution alleges, a judge may call for a Newton hearing.
The case that originated this practice R v Newton, involved a peculiar he-said, she-said trial over a sexual act that would soon be decriminalized in most of the world. Mr. Newton, the defendant, was accused of "buggery," also called sodomy, with an adult woman. Newton claimed that he was guilty of the act, but insisted that it was consensual between partners. Since the issue of consensus could greatly affect the sentencing, the judge ordered a special hearing in which only the judge, and not a jury, would try to reconcile the facts to determine sentencing.
There are several rules of procedure that guide a Newton hearing. First, the hearing almost always results after a defendant has pled guilty. If a defendant pleads not guilty, the trial will proceed normally and the defendant's counsel can mount a defense of facts. The judge must also determine that the dispute of facts is significant enough to have an impact on sentencing.
Damocles said:I don't actually see what your problem is. Ignoring all the bits about how lovely the guy is, and the "judge with a vendetta" which every single person in prison and their entire family thinks, there's nothing here that seems particularly untoward.
A guy followed a man into a pub toilet and violently assaulted him. The attackee claimed he used a bottle and the evidence found at the scene fits this story. The attacker isn't suitable to be given early release because he lives next door to the person that he attacked.
This is actually the judicial system being quite sensible and putting victim's rights first. If you didn't know this lad oakie I'd wager you'd feel differently about it.
Pelly Greeny said:Not saying this is the case, but I know first hand how someone who does something like that doesn't want the rest of the world to know what they actually did and twists and dilutes the facts so much that instead of the victim getting the sympathy for the incident, the attacker does for such a 'terrible' miscarriage of justice.
After the court case they tell everyone how unfair it all was and that it should never have gone to court, the forensics were wrong, the victims statement was a pack of lies etc.
My ex still tells me that it was all an unfortunate accident and how unfair her sentence was - she seems to forget I was there and know exactly what happened and there was nothing accidental about it and it was a deliberate violent attack that was a fraction of a second from taking my life.
As I said it could be that he's been hard done to but sometimes the person you see out and about and what are told isn't actually happened. Very few people who knew my ex had seen her true and violent side and were shocked at what she did - I was only surprised it took so long to happen!