The fact his two crimes are none related means nothing - they are 2 crimes. And I doubt CPS are that bothered about cutting a deal for financial purposes as the court will probably award costs in their favour.

Wasnt spent when he got charged

For all the debate this matter will provoke it's something that is hard to determine. The only consistent thing sorrounding sentancing is the inconsistancy.

but not at the time of the offence, which is how the magistrate should view it.

Of course he will they could have dealt with a guilty plea last year, but they left it until now so its nice and tidy to deal with.


This case is still sub judice by the way

Nope its when you are in court

and besides its not relevant as the two crimes are not connected

Charged is not guilty is it

English lawhttps://www.justice.gov.uk/criminal/procrules_fin/contents/rules/part_47.htmrl The rules have also just changed on the 5th April 2010

we'll see, but I think you are wrong.

You've lost me on this point.

If i received a 6 month term for drink driving which was suspended for 12 months, and then robbed a TV from Tesco's 4 months later the Courts would have no option but to envoke the suspended and add on any sanction for the latest offence. The fact they are not related is irrelevant.

That would suggest it's ok to be a criminal providing you show a little inconsistancy in your offences.

Thankfully not our problem anymore.

The assault conviction in itself should've been enough for Hull to terminate his contract rather than waiting until the back end of last year.

Hear hear.

Raynor is not our player anymore but there are reasons to keep this going as it happened whilst he was a Hull player.

aint it about time he fecked off the banner!!!!

I fully agree.

Well said