Brewster and McBurnie Charged

[1889]

Makes no difference whether the Florist kid has second thoughts or not, it is the CPS that have bought charges against him as it is a criminal case, not a civil case...the only way it will get dropped is if the CPS review and decide there isn't enough evidence after all.

Without a willing complainant the CPS won’t usually prosecute, with the exception of domestic violence cases.

They certainly wouldn’t pursue a charge of common assault, in such circumstances

 

[brownblade]

There was a Sky camera view of the Billy headbutt. There must be a similar view of McBurnie appearing to stamp on someone.

Regardless, pretty minor incident, only happened because this kid is breaking law by going on the pitch (and potentially causing trouble directly with our players).

 

[ghandi]

We will have top notch lawyers. If they cant get him off this they want shooting. Colleague brutally.attacked at his place of.work by people.alteady breaking the law by being on the pitch. Hes surrounded by a baying.mob and reacted out of character...whoops thats not.gonna work is it?

And therein lies the problem of being a bit of a knob, when you need the benefit of.the doubt it wont be forthcoming.

This.could go either way logic.says they shouldn't have been on the pitch, history says McB likes to put his foot in and evidence seems to suggest he may have

I didn't think a prosecution could make a court aware of previous convictions prior or during the trial.

 

[FriethBlade]

I didn't think a prosecution could make a court aware of previous convictions prior or during the trial.

True but the defence cant use it as a mitigating circumstance either....now if it had been Berge who was being charged......

 

[Gavlar]

So this is coming up next week me thinks. Not sure what the outcome will be for Oli but I'm hopeful he will be let off.

 

[Addison]

Nothing in Court listings for to-day . Stir have just confirmed Court appearance put back to 14 December no reasons given.

https://www.thestar.co.uk/sport/football/sheffield-united/sheffield-united-striker-oli-mcburnie-court-date-postponed-after-nottingham-forest-play-off-charge-394486

 

[varkanoid]

Nothing in Court listings for to-day . Stir have just confirmed Court appearance put back to 14 December no reasons given.

https://www.thestar.co.uk/sport/football/sheffield-united/sheffield-united-striker-oli-mcburnie-court-date-postponed-after-nottingham-forest-play-off-charge-394486

Probably due to the operation and recovery time. Special compensation.

 

[Sheff de party]

I didn't think a prosecution could make a court aware of previous convictions prior or during the trial.

It’s a lot more complicated than this. They can apply to introduce it if it shows evidence of bad character. So if McBurnie has said “I’d never assault anyone” and has a conviction for assault, they could use that as evidence of bad character. The same if he had accused the complainant of being a liar, then changed his story to say “alright I didn’t stamp on him but I was defending myself.”

There are a few more examples but that’s two. I don’t think he has any convictions other than drink driving though does he? Which I can’t see being admissible.

 

[Sheff de party]

There was a Sky camera view of the Billy headbutt. There must be a similar view of McBurnie appearing to stamp on someone.

Regardless, pretty minor incident, only happened because this kid is breaking law by going on the pitch (and potentially causing trouble directly with our players).

When claiming self defence it’s all about being proportionate. If you find someone in your house in the middle of the night and whack them with a baseball bat, it’s different to thinking someone looked at you funny and glassing them in the face just in case.

In McBurnie’s case, the Crown will have to prove that either he didn’t believe force was necessary to defend himself or others, or that the force used was unreasonable (I.e excessive).

The important point is that it doesn’t matter whether your belief was mistaken, if it was genuine.

The fact that the person was breaking the law by encroaching the pitch isn’t going to get him off. The fact that Billy has been assaulted would obviously add to reasonable belief that you yourself would be assaulted, if you knew about it.

 

[Frank the tank]

Probably due to the operation and recovery time. Special compensation.

Heard hes contracted glandular fever and is now on paliative care

 

[Sheff de party]

This is what I don't like about the law.

The idea that people who are where they shouldn't be can still claim some sort of protection.

If someone breaks into your house and you catch them robbing you and deal out a bit of a pasting to them, then you can get done for GBH.

Feels a little similar here. Guy already breaking the law, contributing to a threatening, dangerous scene where one player has already been hurt.

Notwithstanding McBurnie had an injured leg and it isn't clear he placed his foot on him, not on the videos I saw, but feeling under threat why would you wait to defend yourself?

If an intruder was in your home, are you supposed to wait for him to attack you first or should you take the initiative and have the element of surprise on your side?

There is no need to wait for an attack to then claim self defence. You can attack first.

the Crown has to prove that you either:

didn’t genuinely believe that force was necessary to prevent attack on you/others, damage to property or crime. If you find someone in your house in the middle of the night, it’s very unlikely that they will convince a jury that you didn’t believe that to be a threat.

Used force that was unreasonable. So if you see someone drunk in your garden, chase them down the street and stab them, that’s different to clocking an intruder with a bat when they’re burgling your house.

People are very unlikely to be charged for defending their home but if you stab a burglar to death, the police have to at least look at it in a civilised society.

 

[CaptainMorgans]

There is no need to wait for an attack to then claim self defence. You can attack first.

the Crown has to prove that you either:

didn’t genuinely believe that force was necessary to prevent attack on you/others, damage to property or crime. If you find someone in your house in the middle of the night, it’s very unlikely that they will convince a jury that you didn’t believe that to be a threat.

Used force that was unreasonable. So if you see someone drunk in your garden, chase them down the street and stab them, that’s different to clocking an intruder with a bat when they’re burgling your house.

People are very unlikely to be charged for defending their home but if you stab a burglar to death, the police have to at least look at it in a civilised society.

When could stamping on someone on the floor be deemed to be self-defence?

 

[Gerritforud]

When could stamping on someone on the floor be deemed to be self-defence?

When you're Tyrone Mings?

 

[Davalon]

Has the dog nonce received any charges or punishment for being on the pitch amongst the opposition players?

 

[BushBlade]

When could stamping on someone on the floor be deemed to be self-defence?

When you’ve decked them and they get up and have another go.

When they’ve got a weapon.

When they’re much bigger than you and you’re in fear of your life if they’re able to get up again.

 

[metalblade]

Nothing in Court listings for to-day . Stir have just confirmed Court appearance put back to 14 December no reasons given.

https://www.thestar.co.uk/sport/football/sheffield-united/sheffield-united-striker-oli-mcburnie-court-date-postponed-after-nottingham-forest-play-off-charge-394486

He should be in court tomorrow maybe The Stir have got it wrong again (page not available) if it has been put back a week expect it to be case dropped, surely courts have more important things to do, the dog nonce wasn't even hurt.

 

[Frank the tank]

When could stamping on someone on the floor be deemed to be self-defence?

When youre on crutches

 

[CaptainMorgans]

When you’ve decked them and they get up and have another go.

When they’ve got a weapon.

When they’re much bigger than you and you’re in fear of your life if they’re able to get up again.

If the prosecution can convince a jury that McBurnie has stamped on the lad and you're correct on the above legal precedents, then it's probably the very last point which he'd have to rely on.

He's at a massive disadvantage in terms of the protective boot he was wearing, surrounded by an over-excited mob of thousands of football fans, a lot of them likely to be drunk... you can easily begin to frame the context around mitigating circumstances that the defence will use.

The Billy Sharp assault should also help in lending to "the fear for safety" that McBurnie would have been feeling, regardless of whether he was aware of the assault at that time - he'd have known what a real possibility it was.
Had there not been assaults following pitch invasions in the days prior also?

I'm not sure whether this is the angle the defence will go for, or if they'll deny the stamp entirely and say that he was planting his feet - awkwardly - due to the protective boot.

I think McBurnie has hinted at the latter on social media.

 

[BushBlade]

If they can convince a jury that McBurnie has stamped on the lad and you're correct on the above legal precedents, then it's probably the very last point which he'd have to rely on.

He's at a massive disadvantage in terms of the protective boot he was wearing, surrounded by an over-excited mob of thousands of football fans, can easily set the context for mitigating circumstances. The Billy Sharp assault should also help frame the fear for safety that McBurnie would have felt.
Regardless of whether he was aware of the assault at that time, he'd have known what a real possibility it was. Had there not been assaults following pitch invasions in the day prior also?

Just convincing anyone it was definitely a stamp may be difficult when his mobility was impaired by the boot. I expect any reasonable judge to say the evidence is not conclusive enough and criticise the CPS for pursuing it.

 

[CaptainMorgans]

Just convincing anyone it was definitely a stamp may be difficult when his mobility was impaired by the boot. I expect any reasonable judge to say the evidence is not conclusive enough and criticise the CPS for pursuing it.

Edited my post as you were responding to cover this point off. Yes, I think this is the angle the defence are probably more likely to take.

 

[Snowflake]

Probably due to the operation and recovery time. Special compensation.

I doubt he will receive “compensation “ !

 

[Sheff de party]

Just convincing anyone it was definitely a stamp may be difficult when his mobility was impaired by the boot. I expect any reasonable judge to say the evidence is not conclusive enough and criticise the CPS for pursuing it.

The point at which this could have happened has passed.

 

[Sheff de party]

When could stamping on someone on the floor be deemed to be self-defence?

This will be very much Mr McBurnie’s issue if that’s his defence. But the crown will have to prove it was unreasonable in the circumstances he believed he was in. Either that or he’s saying it didn’t happen.

The defence must feel they can do one those or he’d have pleaded guilty.

 

[Sheff de party]

If the prosecution can convince a jury that McBurnie has stamped on the lad and you're correct on the above legal precedents, then it's probably the very last point which he'd have to rely on.

He's at a massive disadvantage in terms of the protective boot he was wearing, surrounded by an over-excited mob of thousands of football fans, a lot of them likely to be drunk... you can easily begin to frame the context around mitigating circumstances that the defence will use.

The Billy Sharp assault should also help in lending to "the fear for safety" that McBurnie would have been feeling, regardless of whether he was aware of the assault at that time - he'd have known what a real possibility it was.
Had there not been assaults following pitch invasions in the days prior also?

I'm not sure whether this is the angle the defence will go for, or if they'll deny the stamp entirely and say that he was planting his feet - awkwardly - due to the protective boot.

I think McBurnie has hinted at the latter on social media.

Just to be clear, this is in the magistrates court. There won’t be a jury.

The ‘damage’ to another person can also be very slight. Spitting counts, for instance.

 

[bartman]

Either that or he’s saying it didn’t happen.

Surely this is the way he will approach it. The defence should have seen all the evidence and will know if there is any independent proof of any wrongdoing.

 

[Brian Deane]

There is no need to wait for an attack to then claim self defence. You can attack first.

the Crown has to prove that you either:

didn’t genuinely believe that force was necessary to prevent attack on you/others, damage to property or crime. If you find someone in your house in the middle of the night, it’s very unlikely that they will convince a jury that you didn’t believe that to be a threat.

Used force that was unreasonable. So if you see someone drunk in your garden, chase them down the street and stab them, that’s different to clocking an intruder with a bat when they’re burgling your house.

People are very unlikely to be charged for defending their home but if you stab a burglar to death, the police have to at least look at it in a civilised society.

It still cost Tony Martin 5yrs ov his life though

 

[Addison]

The charge of common assault was upgraded to assault by beating. It is still covered by the offence of common assault under section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. Whereas with the lower charge of common assault the victim would only have to prove an intention to harm assault by beating has a higher burden of proof requiring physical contact as described below;

To establish the offence of assault by beating the prosecution must prove all three of the following elements:

1. An individual has committed an act which caused another person to suffer immediate unlawful violence. Or the individual has struck, touched, or applied force to another person.
2. The victim did not consent to the conduct.
3. The individual’s conduct was intentional or reckless.

The main witness for the prosecution appears to be a 13 year old. This may or may not be the individual who took the grainy video. Mcb's defence has previously been reported as acting in self defence. Whether that has now been amended remains to be seen. In any event the onus will be on the prosecution to prove all 3 elements existed at the moment Mcb stood over the alleged victim.

 

[Wapping Blade]

Just to be clear, this is in the magistrates court. There won’t be a jury.

The ‘damage’ to another person can also be very slight. Spitting counts, for instance.

Not sure that’s right, he’s already been to Mags, this is a trial.

 

[Tom Bott]

When could stamping on someone on the floor be deemed to be self-defence?

If you tripped in a melee, with a surgical boot hampering your control.
Not self defence, accident.

Can I run to the Sun with my version of the story. ?

 

[Tom Bott]

The main witness for the prosecution appears to be a 13 year old. This may or may not be the individual who took the grainy video.

You have to wonder why the 'photographer' wasn't filming his own teams celebrations, rather his mate charging through the away team.