The Year Of The Fox Posted 2 September 2010 Posted 2 September 2010 In court today I believe. Could he be sent down?
h1210 Posted 2 September 2010 Posted 2 September 2010 Dunno, does anyone know if he's injured or just out of the squad because of Shorey? He was in the pub in Aylestone getting through them the day Chelsea hammered them 6-0. Best bit of business we've done recently other than getting rid of 'him' on Tuesday. (General Sport Forum maybe?)
Shrenchel Posted 2 September 2010 Posted 2 September 2010 Yeah getting 7 figures for him is starting to look like daylight. They all think he's fvcking awful.
The Year Of The Fox Posted 2 September 2010 Author Posted 2 September 2010 Dunno, does anyone know if he's injured or just out of the squad because of Shorey? He was in the pub in Aylestone getting through them the day Chelsea hammered them 6-0. Best bit of business we've done recently other than getting rid of 'him' on Tuesday. (General Sport Forum maybe?) Possibly, though its kid of connected to LCFC hence why I posted it in here. I think mattocks injured at the moment. I put him in my dream team (cheap at £1m) but read in the paper that hes injured I think. Agree it was a good bit of business. Can't remember who WBA playe on the BBC towards the end of last season. May have been Bristol City, but whoever it was, the teams right winger had the beating of Mattock every single time
Zingari Posted 2 September 2010 Posted 2 September 2010 http://www.expressandstar.com/news/2010/09/02/suspended-sentence-for-albion-ace-joe-mattock/ suspended sentence 10 months detention suspended for two years.
stix Posted 2 September 2010 Posted 2 September 2010 He's been omitted from WBA's 25 man squad today.
Heart-Shaped Fox Posted 2 September 2010 Posted 2 September 2010 He's been omitted from WBA's 25 man squad today. Doesnt need to be named as he is a home grown player under 21.
davieG Posted 2 September 2010 Posted 2 September 2010 I'm sure if he was classed as a fan and committed the same offences he'd have a custodial sentence.
Manwell Pablo Posted 2 September 2010 Posted 2 September 2010 I'm sure if he was classed as a fan and committed the same offences he'd have a custodial sentence. Probably not, aware of someone who got a police caution for knocking someone else clean out not so long ago. In comparison Mattock has been given a hefty sentance.
Babylon Posted 2 September 2010 Posted 2 September 2010 Probably not, aware of someone who got a police caution for knocking someone else clean out not so long ago. In comparison Mattock has been given a hefty sentance. I know someone who was attacked from behind, almost killed, wasoff work for a year because of the injuries and the attacker got a suspended sentence. So no, it's no a surprise at all really.
davieG Posted 2 September 2010 Posted 2 September 2010 Probably not, aware of someone who got a police caution for knocking someone else clean out not so long ago. In comparison Mattock has been given a hefty sentance. Not when you consider he exchanged a not guilt to a guilty plea to lose the perverting the course of justice charge, he could obviously afford the best lawyers that's what's saved him.
Sir Fynwy Posted 2 September 2010 Posted 2 September 2010 Not when you consider he exchanged a not guilt to a guilty plea to lose the perverting the course of justice charge, he could obviously afford the best lawyers that's what's saved him. A certain legally trained person who posts on FT was in the court, her assessment of the QC representing Joe wasn't very favourable.
davieG Posted 2 September 2010 Posted 2 September 2010 A certain legally trained person who posts on FT was in the court, her assessment of the QC representing Joe wasn't very favourable. After what they achieved outside of the court, maybe in court was an anti-climax and the QC was bored.
Guest Posted 2 September 2010 Posted 2 September 2010 I'm sure if he was classed as a fan and committed the same offences he'd have a custodial sentence. Technically, he has got a custodial sentence. There's legislation (Criminal Justice Act 2003 s189 on) that applies where a person convicted is between 18 and 21yrs of age that allows the sentence to be suspended. It's his age, not his status, that means he's not in a cell waiting to be moved to HMYOI Glen Parva. Not when you consider he exchanged a not guilt to a guilty plea to lose the perverting the course of justice charge, he could obviously afford the best lawyers that's what's saved him. He hasn't changed his plea; he was charged on a sixth count; this is an alternative to the assault charges, not the perverting the course of justice. The Prosecution offered no evidence, something I said would happen after the PCMH. Again, this is nothing to do with his status. Pleading guilty to an lesser charge quite often happens to avoid unnecessary trials.
davieG Posted 2 September 2010 Posted 2 September 2010 Technically, he has got a custodial sentence. There's legislation (Criminal Justice Act 2003 s189 on) that applies where a person convicted is between 18 and 21yrs of age that allows the sentence to be suspended. It's his age, not his status, that means he's not in a cell waiting to be moved to HMYOI Glen Parva. He hasn't changed his plea; he was charged on a sixth count; this is an alternative to the assault charges, not the perverting the course of justice. The Prosecution offered no evidence, something I said would happen after the PCMH. Again, this is nothing to do with his status. Pleading guilty to an lesser charge quite often happens to avoid unnecessary trials. Thanks for the clarification the advantages of knowing someone on the inside although I still feel that if all the circumstances were the same and he was identified as a football fan (hooligan) rather than a player the sentence would have been tougher, facts may prove me wrong but that's my perception.
Jimmy Posted 2 September 2010 Posted 2 September 2010 Thanks for the clarification the advantages of knowing someone on the inside although I still feel that if all the circumstances were the same and he was identified as a football fan (hooligan) rather than a player the sentence would have been tougher, facts may prove me wrong but that's my perception. considering the incident happened during a night out and not in the immediate time frame of a match he wouldn't of been classed as a hooligan
Guest Posted 2 September 2010 Posted 2 September 2010 Thanks for the clarification the advantages of knowing someone on the inside although I still feel that if all the circumstances were the same and he was identified as a football fan (hooligan) rather than a player the sentence would have been tougher, facts may prove me wrong but that's my perception. As Jimmy says, it was an incident on a night out. The judge did comment on the seriousness of late night violence in the city centre, but this is only one matter that goes into considering sentence. I have been asked by several people what I thought the sentence would be, and I don't think I was far off what was actually given. I have the benefit of the books, but I also have experience of sitting in this judge's court, and seeing his sentencing and thought processes, and I took this into consideration with my guess. I don't believe that he would treat any other 20 year old pleading guilty to a similar charge any different. One other thing; credit was given for pleading guilty when the affray charge was put to him. Had he been convicted at trial, it would have been about 12mths (he wasn't given full credit, from what I could gather, so I'm guessing at this).
davieG Posted 2 September 2010 Posted 2 September 2010 considering the incident happened during a night out and not in the immediate time frame of a match he wouldn't of been classed as a hooligan He would if he'd been to a game earlier in the day.
Zingari Posted 2 September 2010 Posted 2 September 2010 we need to keep our jails freed up so that we can bang up for 5 years the type of dangerous psychopaths who fraudulently try to sell the Ritz hotel
Jimmy Posted 2 September 2010 Posted 2 September 2010 He would if he'd been to a game earlier in the day. no he wouldn't not when he got nicked in the early hours outside a club, I know nobody likes mattock any more, but he was a 20 year old lad commuting his 1st offence, any more and he'd be getting overly punished because he's a footballer
Fox in a Box Posted 2 September 2010 Posted 2 September 2010 from this is leicester (online) Footballer given suspended sentence after nightclub brawl Ex-Leicester City footballer Joe Mattock has avoided custody after he floored four people in a violent nightclub brawl, a court heard. The £40,000-a-month defender lashed out with punches after criticism from a fan because he had just transferred from Leicester City to premier league club, West Bromwich Albion, Leicester Crown Court heard today. The 20-year-old admitted causing an affray Liquid Envy nightclub, in Church Gate, Leicester, on August 30 last year. Mattock, of Grove Road, Whetstone, received 10 months detention, suspended for two years and was ordered to do 150 hours of unpaid work and pay £1,500 costs.
Fox in a Box Posted 2 September 2010 Posted 2 September 2010 you cant teach an old boy new tricks...........
Manwell Pablo Posted 2 September 2010 Posted 2 September 2010 Thanks for the clarification the advantages of knowing someone on the inside although I still feel that if all the circumstances were the same and he was identified as a football fan (hooligan) rather than a player the sentence would have been tougher, facts may prove me wrong but that's my perception. Nah seriously, the legal system is rubbish and the prisons are full. It's Nothing to do with his status.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.