Neil Lennon

N

Niall M

Registered User
Messages
140
[broken link removed]

Is the world gone mad, how can he be cleared of assault.
 
That was my initial reaction to the story and then I read the article.
There was no question that the man was guilty of assault, but I got the feeling that the Crown erred when it also pushed for the sectarian issue to be taken into account.
I think there may have been a degree of denial that after having achieved "peace" in Northern Ireland it had come to this on a field in Scotland.
I also think the jury decision may have been less an apologist support for the action and more a response to the assailant's remorse for an action undertaken in the heat of the moment.
Plus they would have considered the devastation hsi imprisonment would have had on his family.
Finally as people who are far closer to this than we are, they may have been in fear of the English Riot Mentality spreading to Scotland.
Personally I think the man should have been convicted but given a light sentence if it was his first offence - no blood was spilled and there was a clear onus on the organizers and the police to keep order.
Its a clear signal that Scotland is simmering at the moment and the authorities will have to watch their back in the coming weeks for a reaction to this decision.
 
I agree. How can a man who hit Lennon in fill view of 30,000 people and on Television cameras be cleared of assault. He admitted assault also at the trial and a member of the hearts staff heard him call Lennon a Fenian B*****d.

I wonder were the jury hearts fans or worse bigots themselves??
 
I was being generous to him above.
The flip side of this is the terrible vista that suggests bigotry is rampantly alive and well in Scotland.
It would be interesting to know the demographic make up of the Jurors and any direction they may have received from the Trial Judge.
 
onq said:
I also think the jury decision ... more a response to the assailant's remorse for an action undertaken in the heat of the moment.
Plus they would have considered the devastation hsi imprisonment would have had on his family.
Click to expand...

They are not for the jury to decide
 
This verdict is oddly similar to the case of Robert Draper, a self-styled 'pastor' and two of his followers who smashed the Ballinspittle Statue of the Virgin Mary back in the mid-80s.

The story of that case is usefully summarised here:

"The three men were tried at Portlaoise Circuit Court on Tuesday, March 4, 1986, before a Judge O'Higgins and charged with "causing malicious damage in a place of divine worship." The judge stated that he had to be "particularly zealous in guarding the rights of the three defendants" and dismissed the case on the grounds that the Ballinspittle grotto is not, in fact, a place of divine worship. To the defendants, of course, it was a place of sinful idolatry."
Click to expand...

In that case, the defendants would have been convicted had the charge against them not included the words 'a place of divine worship' The defendant in the Lennon case would have been convicted if the charge against him had not included the word 'sectarian'.
 
He wasn't cleared, the case was found "not proven". Under Scottish Law, in effect, that means the jury was not convinced he was innocent but did not believe they had enough proof to convict. It sound more like the CPS made a horses rear end of things as much as anything else

I think the double jeopardy rule doesn't apply to not proven cases so it could be retried again
 
The jury heard all the evidence and convicted Mr Wilson of breach of the peace without the hate aggravation and found him not guilty of the charge of assault, which also contained a hate aggravation.
Click to expand...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-14748152

So the jury were able to remove the 'hate' aggravation from the breach of the peace charge but couldn't find it within themselves to remove it from the assault charge?

It's scandalous, and opens the door for further attacks on an innocent man. That jury should hang their heads in shame.
 
Scandalous is right Bill. Quite how a guy who was witnessed by thousands assaulting Lennon, and who admitted himself shouting abuse as he made his assault, can be cleared of a charge of assault is quite shocking. It is an poor reflection on the prosecution that they could not secure a guilty verdict.
That said by all accounts Lennon has had to deal with much worse than this in the past few years so I'm sure he will be able to move on from this - the fear obviously is that others won't and tensions will be even worse over the coming season. It's time the authorities in Scotland took the situation a bit more seriously.
 
Well I would have thought that is up to a jury to determine guilt or not and not to decide on the impact that a prison sentence could have on someone. That is up to the judge to consider.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top