10 year ban!

[Deborah3]

Amateur footballer who punched referee banned for ten years

EXCLUSIVE BY DAVID COVERDALE: The player who punched a referee in a grassroots football match has been banned for 10 years. Satyam Toki was left with excessive bleeding above his eye.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Should be a lifetime ban and locked up too!!! No excuse for this whatsoever!

 

[Mada]

People seem outraged by the ban being 10 years. That's a long time. If he doesn't play, although I'm sure there is a good chance he will under a different name or an unregulated event, then he has missed playing competitive football during the prime years of his life. That's a lot of time to think about what he did and regret his actions. A lot of people will argue that the FA could have sent a message but I saw on twitter 10 years was the maximum ban for this offence (5 years for assault and 10 for a serious injury). I'd hope that clubs would be aware and wouldn't take the risk on him playing for their club.

What annoys me most is that the police haven't got involved. The evidence is so overwhelming and his identity is known. He should face the consequences criminally not just preventing him from playing.

 

[Kes]

What annoys me most is that the police haven't got involved. The evidence is so overwhelming and his identity is known. He should face the consequences criminally not just preventing him from playing.

Yeah that bit is puzzling to say the least. Also the bit about the guy "offering him money". All sounds a bit dodgy ...

Mind you, let's not forget ... it's the Daily Fail!!

 

[RustyRef]

As I've said before, the fact he did an interview detailing exactly what happened almost straight after the game makes a successful prosecution all that more difficult. The police might well want to prosecute, but if the CPS aren't confident of a conviction they won't go anywhere near it.

 

[socal lurker]

As I've said before, the fact he did an interview detailing exactly what happened almost straight after the game makes a successful prosecution all that more difficult. The police might well want to prosecute, but if the CPS aren't confident of a conviction they won't go anywhere near it.

What was said in the interview that would make it difficult to prosecute?

 

[RustyRef]

What was said in the interview that would make it difficult to prosecute?

Pretty much anything that was said. The defendant, or more likely his solicitors, could claim that the media attention affected his right to a fair trial. I think the legal phrase is sub judice.

 

[socal lurker]

I think you are over reading the potential for prejudice. Over here in the US, the fact there was publicity isn't enough to prevent a trial--the defendant would have to convince the judge that the publicity made it impossible to empanel an impartial jury. But even then, the decision wouldn't be to dismiss the prosecution, but to change venue. Given the US system is based on the British one, I would be surprised if this was that much different. Not everyone is going to have read about and formed an opinion about it.

 

[Nij]

I think you are over reading the potential for prejudice. Over here in the US, the fact there was publicity isn't enough to prevent a trial--the defendant would have to convince the judge that the publicity made it impossible to empanel an impartial jury. But even then, the decision wouldn't be to dismiss the prosecution, but to change venue. Given the US system is based on the British one, I would be surprised if this was that much different. Not everyone is going to have read about and formed an opinion about it.

"Based on" - if you're in certain parts of it, and if you ignore 200+ years of divergence.
Huge swathes of law on the same matter are completely different in the USA versus the UK or Britain or England.

 

[Justylove]

I think you are over reading the potential for prejudice. Over here in the US, the fact there was publicity isn't enough to prevent a trial--the defendant would have to convince the judge that the publicity made it impossible to empanel an impartial jury. But even then, the decision wouldn't be to dismiss the prosecution, but to change venue. Given the US system is based on the British one, I would be surprised if this was that much different. Not everyone is going to have read about and formed an opinion about it.

UK legal system is very different from the US one (other than we both use the adversarial courtroom system).

 

[socal lurker]

Of course many things are different, but they stem from the same basic fundamental concepts. I'd actually be quite interested in hearing the actual rules used in England for pre-trial publicity. I just can't imagine that a small amount of publicity is really going to create a bar to prosecution--it would make high profile crimes essentially impossible to prosecute.

 

[Justylove]

Of course many things are different, but they stem from the same basic fundamental concepts. I'd actually be quite interested in hearing the actual rules used in England for pre-trial publicity. I just can't imagine that a small amount of publicity is really going to create a bar to prosecution--it would make high profile crimes essentially impossible to prosecute.

There is a concept in English law called "sub judice" this means it is illegal for the media to publish details about a case prior to it going to trial.

An example of the differences would be in the case of George Floyd. The whole world has seen footage from witnesses and also from the body cameras of the officers involved. In England all of this detail would only be allowed to come out at trial and not in the media.

When it comes to trial by jury, there are strict rules around what jurors can and can't talk about both during the trial itself and also after the trial has concluded.

Breaking these rules can be classed as being in "Contempt of Court" or "Perverting The Course of Justice" and lead to prison for those doing so.

 

[Deborah3]

All this legal waffle doesn’t hide the basic facts though that a man assaults another man, you can talk about slippery lawyers and CPS percentage nick rates but ultimately a man should go to jail for this!

 

[Justylove]

All this legal waffle doesn’t hide the basic facts though that a man assaults another man, you can talk about slippery lawyers and CPS percentage nick rates but ultimately a man should go to jail for this!

I agree that it shouldn't excuse what the attacker did, however the victim has weakened the chance of getting a conviction unless the attacker pleads guilty due to coming out to the media in the way in which he did.

 

[Deborah3]

I agree that it shouldn't excuse what the attacker did, however the victim has weakened the chance of getting a conviction unless the attacker pleads guilty due to coming out to the media in the way in which he did.

Excuse my ignorance on this, but what's his defence...... 'Yeh Judge, I cracked him 3 times, I tried to injure / blind him, but. you know what, he gave an interview to talk about it to someone and i need to be let off'?? Give me a break!!!

 

[Justylove]

Excuse my ignorance on this, but what's his defence...... 'Yeh Judge, I cracked him 3 times, I tried to injure / blind him, but. you know what, he gave an interview to talk about it to someone and i need to be let off'?? Give me a break!!!

Provocation, claims the video has been doctored any number of things could drag the case through the mire.

Personally I'd like the police to charge him and see where it goes.

 

[socal lurker]

Personally I'd like the police to charge him and see where it goes.

I'd like to see that happen every time, every place a referee is assaulted.

When I first reffed as a youth, I did it for the Police Athletic League, which made it clear to all involved that they would push for charges against anyone assaulting a referee--it helps when the league is run by the police department.

 

[RustyRef]

I agree that it shouldn't excuse what the attacker did, however the victim has weakened the chance of getting a conviction unless the attacker pleads guilty due to coming out to the media in the way in which he did.

Exactly that, I'm not at all saying a conviction would be impossible, rather it weakens the chances. And these days more than ever the CPS won't go near anything that isn't likely to get a conviction.

He has been, in my humble opinion, very badly advised and should have been told to stay well away from the media interviews, at least until after CFA and any potential police investigations had completed.

 

[ChasObserverRefDeveloper]

Exactly that, I'm not at all saying a conviction would be impossible, rather it weakens the chances. And these days more than ever the CPS won't go near anything that isn't likely to get a conviction.

He has been, in my humble opinion, very badly advised and should have been told to stay well away from the media interviews, at least until after CFA and any potential police investigations had completed.

I wonder whether this referee was advised by anyone, or whether he knew where to get advice.
For any referee unfortunate enough to be assaulted or threatened, the County FA is the first call to make. If a member of the RA, contact them also. If under 18, speak to the home club responsible official.
Do not speak to the media or take to social media until you have advice as per the above, and only speak to the media or post with approval from your CFA.
Thankfully assaults are rare.

 

[Mada]

Would it not be fair to say that the decision whether to prosecute is taken AFTER the police interviews and therefore AFTER he has been arrested?

It seems like he hasn't been arrested so it's not even got so far as the CPS deciding whether they could prosecute him.

 

[Peter Grove]

Would it not be fair to say that the decision whether to prosecute is taken AFTER the police interviews and therefore AFTER he has been arrested?

I think it might be fairer to say that that's a typical scenario but that it's not always the case.

According to the info on the CPS website:

CPS prosecutors must review every case referred to us by the police, or other investigators.

There's no mention that the person has to have been arrested, nor that the police necessarily have to be involved (though of course, they usually are).

There have been cases where a victim (or their family) has instigated their own investigation and even started a private prosecution which was then taken over by the CPS.

Again, the CPS website contains information about when the CPS should intervene in a private prosecution. In such cases the suspect may not have ever been arrested by the police, in fact sometimes these private actions are taken precisely because the police did not arrest the individual.