BoxRec

Heard this on Ringside - any more details?

Something to do with the drugs charges he was on? I'm not sure myself.

I know that he's been done for drink driving since the Murray fight, at least once. I'm sure my source told me he'd been done twice.

Then there was the incident with him being caught with the blade in his car.

No surprise that the board have pulled his licence.

He's on a curfew after being convicted in the knife offence. Normal practice for someone to have licence suspended after a conviction

I can never understand people who have the chance of wealth and success but would preffer to throw it all down the pan for a bit of petty crime.

Like these bloody footballers who earn millions but then need to beat up indians or a girl outside a night club.

Id pay real money to give Joey Barton a slap!

Everybody is the way they are for a reason.

Has he been convicted on the drug offences? I know he was convicted over the blade..........

There is a saying, 'You can take a guy out of The Streets, but you can't take The Streets out of the guy' or something like that....

Though I do agree, pretty stupid thing to do. Footballers are the worst, though, thick, dopey pudenda.

bengulnaci1 wrote:There is a saying, 'You can take a guy out of The Streets, but you can't take The Streets out of the guy' or something like that....

Though I do agree, pretty stupid thing to do. Footballers are the worst, though, thick, dopey pudenda.

I take that for 100k per week and any bird you want!

he is on curfew for drink driving and being in possesion of an offensive weapon at time of arrest.

He has pledged on twitter that the worst is over and that he does not wish to harm his career further. he comes across sound on there real down to earth and seemed genuinely annoyed and upset with himself.

Hopefully the fact that he's missed out on the Rios fight (with the man he beat taking his place) will make him realise that he really could go somewhere if he keeps his head on.

As long as he didn't say something wrong in his interview, Fwanks lawyers might be able to get him of with the knife offense.

A knife could be in his car for many reasons, its a case of the police proving he had it for bad intentions.

JDC wrote:As long as he didn't say something wrong in his interview, Fwanks lawyers might be able to get him of with the knife offense.

A knife could be in his car for many reasons, its a case of the police proving he had it for bad intentions.

No, it really isn't. Once the material fact of possession is accepted, the defendant must show a lawful excuse, such as carrying it for work purposes or for national dress (i'm serious).

danfoster wrote:

JDC wrote:As long as he didn't say something wrong in his interview, Fwanks lawyers might be able to get him of with the knife offense.

A knife could be in his car for many reasons, its a case of the police proving he had it for bad intentions.

No, it really isn't. Once the material fact of possession is accepted, the defendant must show a lawful excuse, such as carrying it for work purposes or for national dress (i'm serious).

:??

I don't understand what you think I was saying. His lawyers can provide some bullshit excuse as long as he hasn't already put his foot in it. Then the police would have to prove this wrong.

JDC wrote:

danfoster wrote:

JDC wrote:As long as he didn't say something wrong in his interview, Fwanks lawyers might be able to get him of with the knife offense.

A knife could be in his car for many reasons, its a case of the police proving he had it for bad intentions.

No, it really isn't. Once the material fact of possession is accepted, the defendant must show a lawful excuse, such as carrying it for work purposes or for national dress (i'm serious).

:??

I don't understand what you think I was saying. His lawyers can provide some bullshit excuse as long as he hasn't already put his foot in it. Then the police would have to prove this wrong.

No, they don't. He must prove the lawful excuse, not the other way around.

Also, lawyers are not allowed to 'come up with bullshit excuses'. They get struck off for that. I have dealt with one law firm that i know also represents F rank and the firm in question are well known and i have no reason to think that they go around breaching the solicitors code of professional, ethical conduct.

danfoster wrote:

JDC wrote:

danfoster wrote: No, it really isn't. Once the material fact of possession is accepted, the defendant must show a lawful excuse, such as carrying it for work purposes or for national dress (i'm serious).

:??

I don't understand what you think I was saying. His lawyers can provide some bullshit excuse as long as he hasn't already put his foot in it. Then the police would have to prove this wrong.

No, they don't. He must prove the lawful excuse, not the other way around.

Also, lawyers are not allowed to 'come up with bullshit excuses'. They get struck off for that. I have dealt with one law firm that i know also represents F rank and the firm in question are well known and i have no reason to think that they go around breaching the solicitors code of professional, ethical conduct.

Happens though. I have had them suggest all sorts to add to my various statements, even at court.

JDC wrote:As long as he didn't say something wrong in his interview, Fwanks lawyers might be able to get him of with the knife offense.

A knife could be in his car for many reasons, its a case of the police proving he had it for bad intentions.

As a duty criminal solicitor (who has had a client acquitted at Trial of 2 such charges), take it from me mate... youve got it bang wrong.

JDC wrote:

danfoster wrote:

JDC wrote:As long as he didn't say something wrong in his interview, Fwanks lawyers might be able to get him of with the knife offense.

A knife could be in his car for many reasons, its a case of the police proving he had it for bad intentions.

No, it really isn't. Once the material fact of possession is accepted, the defendant must show a lawful excuse, such as carrying it for work purposes or for national dress (i'm serious).

:??

I don't understand what you think I was saying. His lawyers can provide some bullshit excuse as long as he hasn't already put his foot in it. Then the police would have to prove this wrong.

Not quite mate. In raising a defence such as lawful excuse (e.g. its a work tool, im currently working as a chippy and i have recently been using the knife for work purposes and i store my tools in my vehicle) the defendant is accepting possession. The onus in that type of scenario then falls on the defendant to prove his case on the balance of probabilities.

I'm not going to flog a dead horse

This stuff happens every day.

the CPS should consider whether evidence is available to rebut the defence and should liaise with police if additional enquiries or evidence are necessary. Any defence should be tested by robust cross examination.

hense, they have to prove the defense wrong.

The British legal system does not, and should not, work on the premise of guilty until proven innocent

JDC wrote:I'm not going to flog a dead horse

This stuff happens every day.

the CPS should consider whether evidence is available to rebut the defence and should liaise with police if additional enquiries or evidence are necessary. Any defence should be tested by robust cross examination.

hense, they have to prove the defense wrong.

The British legal system does not, and should not, work on the premise of guilty until proven innocent

It makes little difference if the CPS take you to court they do it on the basis that they think there is a good chance you are guilty. They dont take you to court under the premis of proving your innocence.

I may be correct in thinking that if someone commits an offence and is found to have blade over 3" in their possesion they have to prove they have a legal justification for its use. If it was found in his car and its relatively small i doubt anything will be done about it, if he was walking in a public area with it he would likely have been charged.

The prosecution arent going to be able to prove a pocket knife in a car is intended for assault but for a butterfly knife or a switchblade the prosecution dont have to prove anything because they are illegal and thats that.

He got 100 hours community service for carrying the knife!!

JDC wrote:I'm not going to flog a dead horse

This stuff happens every day.

the CPS should consider whether evidence is available to rebut the defence and should liaise with police if additional enquiries or evidence are necessary. Any defence should be tested by robust cross examination.

hense, they have to prove the defense wrong.

The British legal system does not, and should not, work on the premise of guilty until proven innocent

There's no dead horse to flog. It's been spelled out quite clearly for you by people who do it for a living.

From a journalistic point of view, Ringside (and I've a lot of time for Ed, as he knows) wasn't very helpful.

Saying 'legal woes' means nowt and actually raises more questions than it answers. Why not just inform people of the facts?

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:

JDC wrote:I'm not going to flog a dead horse

This stuff happens every day.

the CPS should consider whether evidence is available to rebut the defence and should liaise with police if additional enquiries or evidence are necessary. Any defence should be tested by robust cross examination.

hense, they have to prove the defense wrong.

The British legal system does not, and should not, work on the premise of guilty until proven innocent

There's no dead horse to flog. It's been spelled out quite clearly for you by people who do it for a living.

From a journalistic point of view, Ringside (and I've a lot of time for Ed, as he knows) wasn't very helpful.

Saying 'legal woes' means nowt and actually raises more questions than it answers. Why not just inform people of the facts?

Journalists and Facts??? Never known one go hand in hand to be honest

Its hasn't at all. Half of a paragraph has been elluded to. I provided the other half. A defense has to be disproved, not the other way round.

In full:

The defendant is entitled to be acquitted if he shows on the balance of probabilities that he had "lawful authority or reasonable excuse" for having the weapon (Archbold 24-121-122). Where details of a defence are given in interview or in a defence statement, the CPS should consider whether evidence is available to rebut the defence and should liaise with the police if additional enquiries or evidence are necessary.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/l_to_o/offe ... _articles/

I'm much happier to take what the CPS ''spell out'' out for me as to what it right. Hell, its not even ambiguous. A defense, clearly, has to be disproved.