[Football] Joey Barton

[Herr Tubthumper]

Interesting that the DPP were determined to see this through and successfully did, without the victim being on their side. Whilst they threw in the towel with the Greenwood case despite damning evidence.

It will be interesting to know how this case differs.

 

[Weststander]

It will be interesting to know how this case differs.

Calling @Joey Jo Jo Jr. Shabadoo

 

[Lady Whistledown]

It will be interesting to know how this case differs.

Maybe I can help here.

There is legal principle called res gestae, which may be applied in proceedings, often but not limited to, domestic violence cases. Essentially it allows the admission of material and evidence which might otherwise be considered hearsay (and thus not permitted), in very specific circumstances. What it means in practice is that if a victim of a crime tells police when they arrive in response to a 999 call that she's been assaulted by her partner, for example, and later either refuses to make a written statement or retracts one she has previously provided, the prosecution may use facts that were observed at the time as evidence.

For example: police arrive at an address in the middle of the night and find the house smashed up and a victim cowering in the corner with a black eye and bruises to her wrists, kids screaming upstairs, while her partner is stomping around the kitchen. When they ask her what's happened, she whispers that he's thrown her against the wall and punched her twice in the face, but she's so scared of him she won't make a statement. Neighbours are spoken to and didn't see what happened but they heard the disturbance and him threatening to kill her.

Res gestae in that scenario means that if the victim could not be persuaded to make a statement, the evidence provided by the police on the night may be accepted- the injury to her, the state of the house, their respective demeanours, the children's distress, the neighbours' concerns. It might even be what was heard on the 999 call- screaming, pleading, whatever. The legal speak is that the victim's account was

"....made in response to an event that was so unusual or startling or dramatic as to dominate the thoughts of the victim, so that [his/her] utterance was an instinctive reaction to that event, thus giving no real opportunity for reasoned reflection”.

The statement must be made by a person so emotionally overpowered by an event that the possibility of distortion or concoction can be disregarded. If you look up the case of DPP v Joseph Barton [2024] EWHC 1350, that's exactly what seems to have happened.

With regard to Greenwood, nothing came to light until some time after the event: I believe it was via a social media post made a while later. There won't have been any of the sort of evidence that I've described above, therefore it would have been almost impossible to pursue a prosecution in those circumstances without the victim's support.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Maybe I can help here.

There is legal principle called res gestae, which may be applied in proceedings, often but not limited to, domestic violence cases. Essentially it allows the admission of material and evidence which might otherwise be considered hearsay (and thus not permitted), in very specific circumstances. What it means in practice is that if a victim of a crime tells police when they arrive in response to a 999 call that she's been assaulted by her partner, for example, and later either refuses to make a written statement or retracts one she has previously provided, the prosecution may use facts that were observed at the time as evidence.

For example: police arrive at an address in the middle of the night and find the house smashed up and a victim cowering in the corner with a black eye and bruises to her wrists, kids screaming upstairs, while her partner is stomping around the kitchen. When they ask her what's happened, she whispers that he's thrown her against the wall and punched her twice in the face, but she's so scared of him she won't make a statement. Neighbours are spoken to and didn't see what happened but they heard the disturbance and him threatening to kill her.

Res gestae in that scenario means that if the victim could not be persuaded to make a statement, the evidence provided by the police on the night may be accepted- the injury to her, the state of the house, their respective demeanours, the children's distress, the neighbours' concerns. It might even be what was heard on the 999 call- screaming, pleading, whatever. The legal speak is that the victim's account was

"....made in response to an event that was so unusual or startling or dramatic as to dominate the thoughts of the victim, so that [his/her] utterance was an instinctive reaction to that event, thus giving no real opportunity for reasoned reflection”.

The statement must be made by a person so emotionally overpowered by an event that the possibility of distortion or concoction can be disregarded. If you look up the case of DPP v Joseph Barton [2024] EWHC 1350, that's exactly what seems to have happened.

With regard to Greenwood, nothing came to light until some time after the event: I believe it was via a social media post made a while later. There won't have been any of the sort of evidence that I've described above, therefore it would have been almost impossible to pursue a prosecution in those circumstances without the victim's support.

I see. Very interesting. It’s good there is this potential option for cases like this. Thank you for taking the time to type all this.

 

[Joey Jo Jo Jr. Shabadoo]

Calling @Joey Jo Jo Jr. Shabadoo

The post from @Lady Whistledown above sums it up far better than I ever could. It also fits in with reports that suggest the 999 call from Georgia Barton was the “most compelling evidence” according to the prosecution.

 

[Lady Whistledown]

The post from @Lady Whistledown above sums it up far better than I ever could. It also fits in with reports that suggest the 999 call from Georgia Barton was the “most compelling evidence” according to the prosecution.

Indeed. Sadly, we know that victims of domestic violence often start to withdraw their support for prosecutions, whether because they’re being threatened by the suspect, or he’s promising never to do it again (for the tenth time), because their confidence has been so eroded by years of abuse that they cannot ever see a way of surviving without that person, who has by that point convinced them they are useless and totally isolated them from all avenues of support from friends and family.

And if a victim does forgive the offender (and we’re usually talking about a long history of abusive behaviour here, it doesn’t mean to my mind that they should walk away scot free as though it never happened.

Forgive me for the frequent use of “he” and “she” here in my examples by the way: statistics do show that women are significantly more likely to be victims of domestic abuse but I don’t want to suggest for one second that men can’t be on the receiving end.

 

[aolstudios]

Maybe I can help here.

There is legal principle called res gestae, which may be applied in proceedings, often but not limited to, domestic violence cases. Essentially it allows the admission of material and evidence which might otherwise be considered hearsay (and thus not permitted), in very specific circumstances. What it means in practice is that if a victim of a crime tells police when they arrive in response to a 999 call that she's been assaulted by her partner, for example, and later either refuses to make a written statement or retracts one she has previously provided, the prosecution may use facts that were observed at the time as evidence.

For example: police arrive at an address in the middle of the night and find the house smashed up and a victim cowering in the corner with a black eye and bruises to her wrists, kids screaming upstairs, while her partner is stomping around the kitchen. When they ask her what's happened, she whispers that he's thrown her against the wall and punched her twice in the face, but she's so scared of him she won't make a statement. Neighbours are spoken to and didn't see what happened but they heard the disturbance and him threatening to kill her.

Res gestae in that scenario means that if the victim could not be persuaded to make a statement, the evidence provided by the police on the night may be accepted- the injury to her, the state of the house, their respective demeanours, the children's distress, the neighbours' concerns. It might even be what was heard on the 999 call- screaming, pleading, whatever. The legal speak is that the victim's account was

"....made in response to an event that was so unusual or startling or dramatic as to dominate the thoughts of the victim, so that [his/her] utterance was an instinctive reaction to that event, thus giving no real opportunity for reasoned reflection”.

The statement must be made by a person so emotionally overpowered by an event that the possibility of distortion or concoction can be disregarded. If you look up the case of DPP v Joseph Barton [2024] EWHC 1350, that's exactly what seems to have happened.

With regard to Greenwood, nothing came to light until some time after the event: I believe it was via a social media post made a while later. There won't have been any of the sort of evidence that I've described above, therefore it would have been almost impossible to pursue a prosecution in those circumstances without the victim's support.

Thanks for this. Such a shame that it couldn't extend to that piece of shit, greenwood

 

[AmexRuislip]

Eni Aluko speaks out after Joey Barton defamation case win

The ex-England striker is "past the point of asking nicely" for people to treat women with respect.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Eni Aluko speaks out after Joey Barton defamation case win

The ex-England striker is "past the point of asking nicely" for people to treat women with respect.

www.bbc.co.uk

So, convicted of wife-beating, convicted of libel regarding Jeremy Vine, further case in court regarding Vine, now on his way to losing a case regarding Aluko.

Not bad for the past 12 months. Football philosopher my arse.

 

[Weststander]

So, convicted of wife-beating, convicted of libel regarding Jeremy Vine, further case in court regarding Vine, now on his way to losing a case regarding Aluko.

Not bad for the past 12 months. Football philosopher my arse.

I recall JB inserting "Nietzsche" and "Sartre" into random musings .

 

[Greg Bobkin]

So, convicted of wife-beating, convicted of libel regarding Jeremy Vine, further case in court regarding Vine, now on his way to losing a case regarding Aluko.

Not bad for the past 12 months. Football philosopher my arse.

He's the kind of berk who would go after her online again about her making those comments in the video, only to find himself with MORE legal trouble!

 

[Triggaaar]

Every time this thread is bounced I hope for the best, but nope

 

[aolstudios]

He's the kind of berk who would go after her online again about her making those comments in the video, only to find himself with MORE legal trouble!

Hopefully

 

[aolstudios]

Eni Aluko speaks out after Joey Barton defamation case win

The ex-England striker is "past the point of asking nicely" for people to treat women with respect.

www.bbc.co.uk

The lack of self awareness to attack her for something a member of her family might have done!..

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I recall JB inserting "Nietzsche" and "Sartre" into random musings .

and who can forget this

 

[Weststander]

and who can forget this

Half expecting JB to ponder "I wonder whether he used Dulux?".

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Half expecting JB to ponder "I wonder whether he used Dulux?".

“It’s definitely a bloke in a dress”