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.

whilst not condoning anything here, what always strikes me in these cases or even in our sport, it's fair to say Punches are thrown with no intent to kill or seriously injur, they are generally heat of the moment, the connection and allsorts of variables thereafter dictate whether you are judged as 'able to look after yourself a bit' - ' a nutter' or 'lucky to get away with not being sent down'

snidey blindside wallops to the jaw when playing are not included in the above generalisation.

When you type a certain players name into Google and search on images, you'd be surprised how many pictures of him with Stuart Reardon there are.....

Its my understanding that West Yorkshire Police didn't even present any witnesses at the trial as they felt multiple angles from cctv footage from around the area would be sufficient to gain a conviction. There was witnesses available for the prosecution to use. Could these reasons be used for a re-trial?

Is incompetence by the prosecution usually a reason for a re-trial?

Got to admit I'm struggling a bit with this one. My understanding of "self defence" was that there was no other option available - ie. if you can walk away then you can't claim it was a last resort. I'd hate to think that everyone I've ever sworn at had the legal right to then beat me to death in self defence.