The mancityfans.net football forum

so many in the UK couldn't wait to screech against him, I will love it if it is all proven to be bollacks. Suspect the prosecution will be withdrawn.

Presume if it goes to a retrial they either find him guilty or not? And if it's guilty, can he get a longer sentence than the one originally imposed and as such have to go back to jail?

And if it's not guilty one assumes he can try to find another club to resurrect his career. Who does he then sue, or is it a case of tough shit?

nottsblue wrote:Presume if it goes to a retrial they either find him guilty or not? And if it's guilty, can he get a longer sentence than the one originally imposed and as such have to go back to jail?

And if it's not guilty one assumes he can try to find another club to resurrect his career. Who does he then sue, or is it a case of tough shit?

No if hes found guilty a second time hes still a free man unless the prosecution came up with other stuff of more severity. It's a retrial to get the case of rape off his name and totally clear him. Opens up a right can of worms though if found not guilty.

With regards to sueing for loss of potential earnings etc it will be a difficult one. Any prisoner who serves time and then eventually found not guitly gets a standard £130 per day they were inside.

When he's found not guilty they should make her serve as long as he's been inside for.

ruralblue wrote:

nottsblue wrote:Presume if it goes to a retrial they either find him guilty or not? And if it's guilty, can he get a longer sentence than the one originally imposed and as such have to go back to jail?

And if it's not guilty one assumes he can try to find another club to resurrect his career. Who does he then sue, or is it a case of tough shit?

No if hes found guilty a second time hes still a free man unless the prosecution came up with other stuff of more severity. It's a retrial to get the case of rape off his name and totally clear him. Opens up a right can of worms though if found not guilty.

With regards to sueing for loss of potential earnings etc it will be a difficult one. Any prisoner who serves time and then eventually found not guitly gets a standard £130 per day they were inside.

Wow. That would be very hard to take if you are proven innocent.
2.5 years in jail, ostracised, lose your job and just to rub salt in the wound - massively out of pocket.
British justice?

Dimples wrote:

ruralblue wrote:

nottsblue wrote:Presume if it goes to a retrial they either find him guilty or not? And if it's guilty, can he get a longer sentence than the one originally imposed and as such have to go back to jail?

And if it's not guilty one assumes he can try to find another club to resurrect his career. Who does he then sue, or is it a case of tough shit?

No if hes found guilty a second time hes still a free man unless the prosecution came up with other stuff of more severity. It's a retrial to get the case of rape off his name and totally clear him. Opens up a right can of worms though if found not guilty.

With regards to sueing for loss of potential earnings etc it will be a difficult one. Any prisoner who serves time and then eventually found not guitly gets a standard £130 per day they were inside.

Wow. That would be very hard to take if you are proven innocent.
2.5 years in jail, ostracised, lose your job and just to rub salt in the wound - massively out of pocket.
British justice?

Probably be a different situation due to his status. However prosecution would argue they presented all available evidence...... which as I know from sitting through the pantomime of a massive trial, does not happen due to bargains and political argument.

Feel for the bloke if evidence has come to light to proclaim his innocence and like Nige said she should get the same time and her identity made public.

I find it hard to believe it took so long to appeal and overturn it. He shouldn't have gone to prison in the first place. The evidence was extremely flakey.

I wonder if he's still any good?

Crossie wrote:I find it hard to believe it took so long to appeal and overturn it. He shouldn't have gone to prison in the first place. The evidence was extremely flakey.

I wonder if he's still any good?

My mate is a prison officer and was based in the prison Ched was in. He said most days he'd get to have a kick about and even managed to brake one of the lads arms that went in goal as his shot was that powerful haha.

Nothing to do with whether he's still good or not but he said Joe Hart used to go and see him a fair few times.

Sister of fu wrote:I know from reading the case his legal team had been trying to find evidence of a text message or FB post from the victim that made it clear she was lying and trying to get money out of him as he was a footballer, it was supposed to be very daming of her, so maybe they have got it.

If found not guilty can he sue for loss of earnings and deformation of character? I know I would.

Unless she has loads of money what would be the point he could sue her for 50 grand but if she is on benefits or low paid he wouldn't get it

johnny99 wrote:

Sister of fu wrote:I know from reading the case his legal team had been trying to find evidence of a text message or FB post from the victim that made it clear she was lying and trying to get money out of him as he was a footballer, it was supposed to be very daming of her, so maybe they have got it.

If found not guilty can he sue for loss of earnings and deformation of character? I know I would.

Unless she has loads of money what would be the point he could sue her for 50 grand but if she is on benefits or low paid he wouldn't get it

But then he'd also make sure she never made a penny for the rest of her life!

Mase wrote:

johnny99 wrote:

Sister of fu wrote:I know from reading the case his legal team had been trying to find evidence of a text message or FB post from the victim that made it clear she was lying and trying to get money out of him as he was a footballer, it was supposed to be very daming of her, so maybe they have got it.

If found not guilty can he sue for loss of earnings and deformation of character? I know I would.

Unless she has loads of money what would be the point he could sue her for 50 grand but if she is on benefits or low paid he wouldn't get it

But then he'd also make sure she never made a penny for the rest of her life!

I know what mean but the law in this country is she would still have to have enough money to live on before she had to pay any money basically it's only ever worth sueing if the person your sueing has a bit of wealth

Cocacolajojo wrote:

Dameerto wrote:

BlueinBosnia wrote:Does this mean he's deemed not guilty until a verdict has been reached in the new trial, or that he's still guilty pending a retrial, does anyone know?

Innocent until proven guilty. He's back to being a suspect.

As an aside, are you not guilty or innocent if a prosecutor fails to prove your guilt in the UK?

What I quoted is a principle of English law, it's a black or white thing, one or the other.

BlueinBosnia wrote:

Cocacolajojo wrote:

Dameerto wrote:

BlueinBosnia wrote:Does this mean he's deemed not guilty until a verdict has been reached in the new trial, or that he's still guilty pending a retrial, does anyone know?

Innocent until proven guilty. He's back to being a suspect.

As an aside, are you not guilty or innocent if a prosecutor fails to prove your guilt in the UK?

In English and Welsh law, there is just 'guilty' and 'not guilty'. In Scotland, there's something called 'not proven', too (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_proven).

Cheers, you learn something new every day.

Dameerto wrote:

Cocacolajojo wrote:

Dameerto wrote:

BlueinBosnia wrote:Does this mean he's deemed not guilty until a verdict has been reached in the new trial, or that he's still guilty pending a retrial, does anyone know?

Innocent until proven guilty. He's back to being a suspect.

As an aside, are you not guilty or innocent if a prosecutor fails to prove your guilt in the UK?

What I quoted is a principle of English law, it's a black or white thing, one or the other.

According to English law, if BiB is not pulling my leg, you're not guilty until proven guilty. Hence me asking. It's not important though, just curious. In Sweden the terms are often confused. As in, if you're not proven guilty you're innocent. Which you're not. It's not the court's duty to secure anyone's innocence.

As another aside, I've been told that in certain cases in old Roman law, you had to prove your innocence. Don't know if that's true though. I do know that you if you could muster a certain number of propertied men to swear that you were innocent, you'd get off get acquitted of a lot of things in medieval and early modern Sweden.

Good to see him back and playing for Chesterfield.

http://www.bbc.com/sport/football/36876515

Dubaimancityfan wrote:Good to see him back and playing for Chesterfield.

http://www.bbc.com/sport/football/36876515

Absolutely buzzin for him. Really hope he kicks on now and makes his way back up the leagues.
He'd have been playing for Wales this summer instead of that Robson-Kanu 100% had all this not happened.

johnny99 wrote:

Sister of fu wrote:I know from reading the case his legal team had been trying to find evidence of a text message or FB post from the victim that made it clear she was lying and trying to get money out of him as he was a footballer, it was supposed to be very daming of her, so maybe they have got it.

If found not guilty can he sue for loss of earnings and deformation of character? I know I would.

Unless she has loads of money what would be the point he could sue her for 50 grand but if she is on benefits or low paid he wouldn't get it

Could he sue the state?

Foreverinbluedreams wrote:

johnny99 wrote:

Sister of fu wrote:I know from reading the case his legal team had been trying to find evidence of a text message or FB post from the victim that made it clear she was lying and trying to get money out of him as he was a footballer, it was supposed to be very daming of her, so maybe they have got it.

If found not guilty can he sue for loss of earnings and deformation of character? I know I would.

Unless she has loads of money what would be the point he could sue her for 50 grand but if she is on benefits or low paid he wouldn't get it

Could he sue the state?

yes he can claim for Compensation for a Miscarriage of Justice

But I think it's capped to a certain amount which would be less than he was earning at time of arrest. But I guess it would make him feel better, it would me just on principal.

As far as I was aware, she was drunk and/or passed out and he had sex with her.

She doesn't deny this, he doesn't deny this.

His defence in the first trial was he debated the definition of what constitutes rape. You know you're on a winner when your entire defence is the wording of the law.

I guarantee that without his money and high profile, the review commission doesn't spend 10 months on an investigation to quash a conviction when the time has already been served. And without the decision being overturned, he doesn't play another minute as a footballer. Funny how Chesterfield were in for him the second the verdict was changed.

Slim wrote:As far as I was aware, she was drunk and/or passed out and he had sex with her.

She doesn't deny this, he doesn't deny this.

His defence in the first trial was he debated the definition of what constitutes rape. You know you're on a winner when your entire defence is the wording of the law.

I guarantee that without his money and high profile, the review commission doesn't spend 10 months on an investigation to quash a conviction when the time has already been served. And without the decision being overturned, he doesn't play another minute as a footballer. Funny how Chesterfield were in for him the second the verdict was changed.

And Clayton as well don't forget. But Clayton got let off....