Joined: May 12 2007 Posts: 1568 Location: eating pies wearing cherry and white
Cruncher wrote:The fact that they weren't charged with burglary is certainly beneficial to their position. Though to commit burglary, when it's an assault rather than a theft, rape or damage, you need to enter with the intent to commit assault (maybe even GBH, though I'm a little hazy on that). It's very difficult in this situation (i.e. a domestic dispute) to prove that the miscreants entered with the intent to assault. And knowing how gutless the CPS are these days, it's very unlikely that those charges would ever have been pressed.
However, be under no illusion - the circumstances of this incident will still colour the judge's view. This will not be treated like some street brawl in which the accused could claim that he was the victim of provocation.
and that is the thing, the intent, which will be a key word in all this which is why the offence of burglary never came to light. it is very difficult to prove as the only person that really knows is the suspect. the rape side of the defination was dropped about 2 years ago and is now covered under the new sexual offences act, leaving just the theft, assault and damage side of things, but again its proving that intent. for me it was completely premeditated. why take a 6ft4 16st mate with you to find out about your ex's new relationship. i just hope that the judge takes into account evidence of bad character when it comes to pryce which is something they should do as long as it was covered on interview, as well as the fact that domestic violence is a big buzz word in legal circles. i agree with the cps been gutless, they are completely driven by figures and cost, whatever happens it will be interesting to see if saints have the same stand as warrington did with reardon
lothlorian wrote:and that is the thing, the intent, which will be a key word in all this which is why the offence of burglary never came to light. it is very difficult to prove as the only person that really knows is the suspect. the rape side of the defination was dropped about 2 years ago and is now covered under the new sexual offences act, leaving just the theft, assault and damage side of things, but again its proving that intent. for me it was completely premeditated. why take a 6ft4 16st mate with you to find out about your ex's new relationship. i just hope that the judge takes into account evidence of bad character when it comes to pryce which is something they should do as long as it was covered on interview, as well as the fact that domestic violence is a big buzz word in legal circles. i agree with the cps been gutless, they are completely driven by figures and cost, whatever happens it will be interesting to see if saints have the same stand as warrington did with reardon
Johnny F wrote:A lot of stains fans have been bringing up about Feka at what he did the facts are:-
Feka has got a brilliant conduct record on the field, he punched a guy ONCE
Pryce is a cheap shot mercheant who has done other things in the past that makes him a embarrassement to rugby league ( including grabbing players bits TWICE), what was his excuse this time?????
I REST MY CASE MY LORD !!!!!!!!!!!
Really, Well send him down him down if he has previous for sexually assaulting fellow players, embarrassing RL as well...add another 10 years to his sentance. He should get life for those cheap shots. Take your blinkers off.
Joined: Jul 22 2008 Posts: 16170 Location: Somewhere other than here
lothlorian wrote:if entry had been forced to the premises the charge would have been burglary. the defination in law states that if a person enters a building or part of a building as a trespasser with the intention of commiting theft , damage or assault then the offence is complete. i dont believe this was the case with pryce and reardon.
It wasn't. Burglary was never a charge. Violent entry was, but the prosecution brought no evidence. According to reports, Reardon's wife opened the door to Reardon, who then pushed past his then wife with Pryce following.
Deano G - I read the reports ages ago. Judges pontificate. I'll wait and see by how much when the sentencing is handed down on 23rd.
It's appearing at a domestic violence court because it was an incident between a husband and his then wife. I'm not commenting on their marriage because if she's off shagging another bloke before they are even divorced then that tells me there is something unhappy between them and so this could be as much about her having a go at him via the courts as about him lashing out at her. Domestic issues can be very complicated.
PS: Just to make sure you know - I'm female, so don't go thinking I'm a bloke wanting to swing at women or whatever.
Joined: Sep 19 2003 Posts: 3525 Location: Manchester
SaintsFan wrote:It wasn't. Burglary was never a charge. Violent entry was, but the prosecution brought no evidence. According to reports, Reardon's wife opened the door to Reardon, who then pushed past his then wife with Pryce following.
Deano G - I read the reports ages ago. Judges pontificate. I'll wait and see by how much when the sentencing is handed down on 23rd.
It's appearing at a domestic violence court because it was an incident between a husband and his then wife. I'm not commenting on their marriage because if she's off shagging another bloke before they are even divorced then that tells me there is something unhappy between them and so this could be as much about her having a go at him via the courts as about him lashing out at her. Domestic issues can be very complicated.
PS: Just to make sure you know - I'm female, so don't go thinking I'm a bloke wanting to swing at women or whatever.
I'm amazed that you had previously read the reports since you seem to think there were no domestic violence issues around Pryce's offence. Are you now retreating from that position?
By the way, I have NEVER referred to Reardon's marriage.
You should think very carefully about your posts, the third paragraph could be read - I'm sure you didn't intend it to - as being an excuse for domestic violence. Whether or not a woman is "off shagging another bloke before they are even divorced" is irrelevant. A woman has the right not to be assaulted by her ex/partner. End of story. It isn't "complicated" at all.
Badwanger wrote:IMO, Sculthorpe at his peak was better than Hanley was at his.
nickmanator wrote:billy boston in todays game might pinch a spot bringin the cone on and that bein kind
robbierotten wrote:Imo Sam Tomkins is a very poor mans Danny Brough he is just a average player getting bigged up by the idiots who comentate on sky.
Deano G wrote:Jonathan Davies, who is his equal in [Super League] today?
Joined: Sep 26 2002 Posts: 11377 Location: Much too far South
Deano G wrote:A woman has the right not to be assaulted by her ex/partner. End of story. It isn't "complicated" at all.
Were you rallying against Greg Bird's signing when IL said he made an offer? Are you boycotting Catalans after they signed a man not only accused of domestic violence, but getting a mate to take the blame for it?
Do you rally against Leo-Latu playing SL after he broke a woman's nose?
Or are you only interested in Saints players?
Nobody is disputing that what they did was wrong - that's why they went to Court. It's why they pleaded guilty. It's why they're awaiting sentencing. It's why Saints will then take further action.
But don't pretend your moral stance has nothing to do with it being a top Saints player, because you would be barely interested otherwise.
FearTheVee wrote:Were you rallying against Greg Bird's signing when IL said he made an offer? Are you boycotting Catalans after they signed a man not only accused of domestic violence, but getting a mate to take the blame for it?
Do you rally against Leo-Latu playing SL after he broke a woman's nose?
Or are you only interested in Saints players?
Nobody is disputing that what they did was wrong - that's why they went to Court. It's why they pleaded guilty. It's why they're awaiting sentencing. It's why Saints will then take further action.
But don't pretend your moral stance has nothing to do with it being a top Saints player, because you would be barely interested otherwise.
Whether you like it or not, this is a big story, and people are going to talk about it. You can write that off of as Wigan fans being snidey if it makes you feel better, but it isn't just Wigan fans and you know it.
You yourself are bouncing about on this issue like a cat on hot bricks, so your attempts to gag people are a bit unconvincing.
Joined: Sep 26 2002 Posts: 11377 Location: Much too far South
Cruncher wrote:Whether you like it or not, this is a big story, and people are going to talk about it. You can write that off of as Wigan fans being snidey if it makes you feel better, but it isn't just Wigan fans and you know it.
You yourself are bouncing about on this issue like a cat on hot bricks, so your attempts to gag people are a bit unconvincing.
Don't want to gag anyone and I care not what happens to Pryce either at sentencing or subsequently - no bouncing there, quite straightforward. If he goes to jail or we decide to sack him and go with Wheeler/Eastmond - fine by me. And of course it is a big story - Leon Pryce is a big name.
What makes me laugh is the notion that the St Helens club are somehow immoral and complicit in Pryce's actions - especially when IL tried to sign someone accused of domestic violence of a much more grave nature (according to the charges) only weeks ago.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
