www.halifaxcourier.co.uk/latest- ... 6693531.jp

www.halifaxcourier.co.uk/latest- ... 6693531.jp

Whatever the Court's verdict, a guy died as the result of his actions, and that is something he will have to live with for the rest of his life.

Obviously I don't know the finer details of the case, but it does prompt you to wonder what part of "Self Defence", crossing the street to re-engage with Mr Wilson was?

We all do foolish things when we are younger, but some are more foolish than others.

This is typical of football thugs around Leeds, the amount of times I've seen "incidents" like this around Horsforth and Headingley is ridiculas. It would have served to make an example of this thug and make these so called hard men think twice about doing this. Clearly both parties were at fault here but I think the prosecuter summed it up perfectly, a shame the jury didnt agree!!

But he said: "However annoying Mr Wilson was, however aggravating Mr Wilson was, however angry Mr Wilson was, that was no excuse for what happened next."

The incident was caught by a number of cameras in the surrounding area.

Mr Sharp told the jury how Perry, who had watched the match at the nearby Headingley cricket ground, told police he was acting in self-defence.

He said he was pre-empting an attack from Mr Wilson.

The prosecutor said: "It was not self-defence. It was a straightforward assault.

"Mr Perry was some distance away from Mr Wilson and so were his friends.

"If Mr Perry had felt threatened by Mr Wilson all he to do was get into the car and drive off.

"Instead he turned towards Mr Wilson, waited for a car to pass, crossed over and delivered a hard punch.

"There was no need for him to return to Mr Wilson at all nor was there any need, in all the circumstances, to hit him so hard that Mr Wilson was knocked to the ground and fractured his skull."

so sad.

Hi Burley,

Do you have a link for those quotes?

Without possession of the full facts I wouldn't like to criticise the jury's verdict but it certainly is a sad, and cautionary, tale.

Doesn't that presume a conscience on the part of the guy acquitted?

Hi G1, www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/ne ... punch.html The facts sound fairly clear, the rest is down to intepretation really and trying to second guess what was going through the guys mind when he hit him. I find it hard to believe his defence of a pre-empted self defence, it sounds like it could open worrying flood gates....

Hi G1, www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/ne ... punch.html The facts sound fairly clear, the rest is down to intepretation really and trying to second guess what was going through the guys mind when he hit him. I find it hard to believe his defence of a pre-empted self defence, it sounds like it could open worrying flood gates....

Exactly... its this pre-emptive retaliation when you have crossed a road to be in the vicinity of an individual you then decide posses you such a threat you need to beat him to the ground thats the most worrying and confusing aspect of this. I can see barrister up and down the country noting this one to protect their clients in the future

Not necessarily the case

Not quite the case though was it, he was hit once not "beaten to the ground" which gives a totally different impression, its quite possible to kill someone with one punch but its probably the head hitting the ground that did the damage here.

I do agree with your earlier comments though that there are some personalities who seek out confrontation and both parties sound as though they were happy to escalate the situation in this case.

OK I was dramatising a little with the beaten to the ground, but you get the point, he hit him hard enough for the guys head to bounce of the floor. Like you rightly said though, sounds like both sides were more than willing to excalate things without a thought for the consequences. Now one mans dead and the other narrowly missed out on a lengthy jail sentence.

in these cases can there not be a retrial?

On what basis? To the best of my knowledge you can't go for a re-trial on the basis that you just don't think the original outcome was fair. I think there needs to be new evidence (or questions over the original evidence) to force a retrial.

there can be a retrial only if new and compelling evidence is subsequently found, but given that the man was acquited by virtue of the fact that he didnt intend to kill the other, and supposedly acted in self defence, this seems highly unlikely. Unless ofcourse he later admits he was at fault....yeah right.