Steven Gerrard in court?

[trt]

What do you think he deserves., community service, a fine, a prison sentence, or being a rich footballer, will he get let off?

[Androcles]

Let's get the verdict of the court first before we start deciding what the punishment, if any, should be!

[WhiteBears]

What did eric cantona get when he kicked a fan in the crowd?

[trt]

I think it was a 9 month ban from football and so many hours community service.

[trt]

I would have thought he would be found not guilty, because the jury are scousers.

[ELVIS68]

I think he`ll get let off, being a prem footballer out in a bar and someone takes a potshot at him

[TROUTEATER]

1995: Cantona banned over attack on fan
Manchester United's Eric Cantona has been fined �20,000

Cantona has also been stripped of his captaincy of the French national team and he has lost his place in the side.

was suspended for nine months and ordered to serve 120 hours of community service.

[deggers316]

i'm with Androcles lets see the verdict first?
seems we have a few --
*the guys talented and rich so lets all hate him*
gang in here

[Gromit]

Looking at it from afar, it does not look good for Gerrard. Everyone else in his group have held their hands up and admitted their guilt. However, Gerrard has more to lose, and more money to defend himself. My guess is that he will be found guilty but fined what for him will be small change.

I did learn today that he ha a previous conviction for drunk driving. With a normal member of the public, that would highly relevant if it comes to sentencing, but somehow, I still think he will get off relatively lightly.

[ludwig]

Assuming he's found guilty there won't be anything like the Cantona punishment because that happened in much different circumstances.
There'll be a fine which will probably equate to 2 minutes pay and his club will ban him from playing in all the pre-season friendlies.

[ludwig]

Deggers -
*the guys talented and rich so lets all hate him* gang.

Not really, more like the *The guy got drunk and assaulted a stranger in public, so let's all hope he gets punished for that* gang.

[Barmaid]

Gromit - I do not think a conviction for drink driving will be highly relevant. Judges tend only to take into account previous convictions if they are of a similar nature or if the offending behaviour has a common theme.

So it would be highly relevant if it was a previous conviction for violence or public order. Similarly if the current charge was driving related it would be highly relevant.

The only common nexus between the two is if SG was drunk that night - then it may well be that it will be taken into account.

Anyone know if the jury are out yet?

[jake-the-peg]

Didn't he reply he was drunk at a level of 7 on a scale 1 to 10?

Not been following it but just heard that on the news

Did I hear right that he was trying to claim "self defence" or was that someone else?

[New Judge]

Yes, jake, you are right on both counts.

I agree with Androcles in that we should perhaps talk about sentencing if and when Mr Gerard is convicted. However, the verdict, (or more specifically the venue for the trial) is worth a mention.

Affray is an �either way� offence which means it can be tried either at the magistrates� court or at the Crown Court before a judge and jury (as Mr Gerard�s trial is being heard). The choice of venue firstly rests with the magistrates who can accept or decline jurisdiction when they have heard outline facts of the offence. According to their guidelines an offence of Affray should be sent to the Crown Court when there is a �Fight involving a weapon/throwing objects, or conduct causing risk of serious injury�.

Of course I don�t know all the facts and I�m only guessing, but from what I�ve seen and heard of these events it seems that no such feature was present and I would be surprised if magistrates declined jurisdiction.

However, even if they agree to keep the matter in their court, the defendant has the right to opt for Crown Court trial. Normally solicitors would advise clients to opt for magistrates� court trial if it is offered, but I strongly suspect that Mr Gerard was advised to go to Crown Court as the likelihood of sympathy from a Liverpool jury was greater than it might be from a bench of magistrates, as trt suspects.

[ludwig]

Jake, yes that's right. this is an excerpt from a BBC story giving Gerrard's side of things...

The footballer told police the businessman 'grabbed' the card, saying: 'You are not deciding what music goes on here, I am.'
Gerrard said: 'He was quite aggressive. I tried to say to him "What is your problem? Why can't I change it?" '
The millionaire footballer told police he returned to his friends and said: 'Some *****'s just upset me, he won't let me put any music on.' He added: 'It had changed my mood.'
Gerrard claimed Mr McGee continued staring at him and a few minutes later he went over 'to straighten it out'.
He went on: 'I just wanted a chat but he was quite aggressive.

..which I find hilarious. I would have more respect for the man if he just held his hands up and said, you know what, I got drunk and started a fight - the guy said no to me and that bruised my celebrity ego because I'm not used to it, and I reacted violently. I'm ashamed and I'm sorry. The only mitigation I can give is that I have to put up with alot of insults from other teams supporters, and on this occasion I snapped.

But no - we get this pathetic drivel about how he felt upset and was only defending himself.

[Davethedog]

Facts please facts.

If Gerrard is found guilty he will not get a ban from football (unless the FA do him for brining the game into disrepute)

His offence happened out side a ground so no ban no fine from the FA.

Also there are Everton, tranmere and no doubt Man U supporters in Liverpool so the likelyhood of a pro Gerrard jury is slim.

I will be suprised if he gets more than a suspended sentence/ community service and a big fine. He claims self defence which may be the case, its easy to look at things in the cold light of day and say they shouldn't have happened.

However a guilty verdict will open a claim for damages by the victim.

[R1Geezer]

I saw the video, I can't see how it could take a week, he's bang to rights.

[KaptKopter]

( 'I just wanted a chat but he was quite aggressive. )

After 3 of my mates had smacked him ,

What a brave man he is.

[Davethedog]

I don't think you can convict on the video - you see someone elbow the bloke and you see Gerrard move but you don't actualy see him hit him.

It his confession that will do him - I would say if he had kept his mouth shut he may have got off.

[R1Geezer]

Are you blind dave? His mate elbows him then Gerrard pulls the guys head down and gives him 3 upercuts FFS! Even Gerrard says he punched him! the defence is presumably based on a self defence claim.

[Davethedog]

You cannot see it on the video - tell me where you see him hit him? You don't you only know hes hitting him because he says so.