www.halifaxcourier.co.uk/latest- ... 6693531.jp

www.halifaxcourier.co.uk/latest- ... 6693531.jp

Whatever the Court's verdict, a guy died as the result of his actions, and that is something he will have to live with for the rest of his life.

Obviously I don't know the finer details of the case, but it does prompt you to wonder what part of "Self Defence", crossing the street to re-engage with Mr Wilson was?

We all do foolish things when we are younger, but some are more foolish than others.

This is typical of football thugs around Leeds, the amount of times I've seen "incidents" like this around Horsforth and Headingley is ridiculas. It would have served to make an example of this thug and make these so called hard men think twice about doing this. Clearly both parties were at fault here but I think the prosecuter summed it up perfectly, a shame the jury didnt agree!!

But he said: "However annoying Mr Wilson was, however aggravating Mr Wilson was, however angry Mr Wilson was, that was no excuse for what happened next."

The incident was caught by a number of cameras in the surrounding area.

Mr Sharp told the jury how Perry, who had watched the match at the nearby Headingley cricket ground, told police he was acting in self-defence.

He said he was pre-empting an attack from Mr Wilson.

The prosecutor said: "It was not self-defence. It was a straightforward assault.

"Mr Perry was some distance away from Mr Wilson and so were his friends.

"If Mr Perry had felt threatened by Mr Wilson all he to do was get into the car and drive off.

"Instead he turned towards Mr Wilson, waited for a car to pass, crossed over and delivered a hard punch.

"There was no need for him to return to Mr Wilson at all nor was there any need, in all the circumstances, to hit him so hard that Mr Wilson was knocked to the ground and fractured his skull."

so sad.

Hi Burley,

Do you have a link for those quotes?

Without possession of the full facts I wouldn't like to criticise the jury's verdict but it certainly is a sad, and cautionary, tale.

Doesn't that presume a conscience on the part of the guy acquitted?

Hi G1, www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/ne ... punch.html The facts sound fairly clear, the rest is down to intepretation really and trying to second guess what was going through the guys mind when he hit him. I find it hard to believe his defence of a pre-empted self defence, it sounds like it could open worrying flood gates....

Hi G1, www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/ne ... punch.html The facts sound fairly clear, the rest is down to intepretation really and trying to second guess what was going through the guys mind when he hit him. I find it hard to believe his defence of a pre-empted self defence, it sounds like it could open worrying flood gates....

Quote ="BurleyBurleyBurley"Hi G1, www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/ne ... punch.html The facts sound fairly clear, the rest is down to intepretation really and trying to second guess what was going through the guys mind when he hit him. I find it hard to believe his defence of a pre-empted self defence, it sounds like it could open worrying flood gates....'" Get your retaliation in first? It seems an odd world where if you kill a burglar(robber) who enters your property you are found guilty of manslaughter, but in a case such as this (with the same outcome) the perpetrator gets off scotfree.

Quote ="BurleyBurleyBurley"Hi G1, www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/ne ... punch.html The facts sound fairly clear, the rest is down to intepretation really and trying to second guess what was going through the guys mind when he hit him. I find it hard to believe his defence of a pre-empted self defence, it sounds like it could open worrying flood gates....'" Get your retaliation in first? It seems an odd world where if you kill a burglar(robber) who enters your property you are found guilty of manslaughter, but in a case such as this (with the same outcome) the perpetrator gets off scotfree.

Exactly... its this pre-emptive retaliation when you have crossed a road to be in the vicinity of an individual you then decide posses you such a threat you need to beat him to the ground thats the most worrying and confusing aspect of this. I can see barrister up and down the country noting this one to protect their clients in the future

Not necessarily the case

Not quite the case though was it, he was hit once not "beaten to the ground" which gives a totally different impression, its quite possible to kill someone with one punch but its probably the head hitting the ground that did the damage here.

I do agree with your earlier comments though that there are some personalities who seek out confrontation and both parties sound as though they were happy to escalate the situation in this case.

OK I was dramatising a little with the beaten to the ground, but you get the point, he hit him hard enough for the guys head to bounce of the floor. Like you rightly said though, sounds like both sides were more than willing to excalate things without a thought for the consequences. Now one mans dead and the other narrowly missed out on a lengthy jail sentence.

in these cases can there not be a retrial?

On what basis? To the best of my knowledge you can't go for a re-trial on the basis that you just don't think the original outcome was fair. I think there needs to be new evidence (or questions over the original evidence) to force a retrial.

there can be a retrial only if new and compelling evidence is subsequently found, but given that the man was acquited by virtue of the fact that he didnt intend to kill the other, and supposedly acted in self defence, this seems highly unlikely. Unless ofcourse he later admits he was at fault....yeah right.

whilst not condoning anything here, what always strikes me in these cases or even in our sport, it's fair to say Punches are thrown with no intent to kill or seriously injur, they are generally heat of the moment, the connection and allsorts of variables thereafter dictate whether you are judged as 'able to look after yourself a bit' - ' a nutter' or 'lucky to get away with not being sent down'

snidey blindside wallops to the jaw when playing are not included in the above generalisation.

When you type a certain players name into Google and search on images, you'd be surprised how many pictures of him with Stuart Reardon there are.....

Its my understanding that West Yorkshire Police didn't even present any witnesses at the trial as they felt multiple angles from cctv footage from around the area would be sufficient to gain a conviction. There was witnesses available for the prosecution to use. Could these reasons be used for a re-trial?

Is incompetence by the prosecution usually a reason for a re-trial?

Got to admit I'm struggling a bit with this one. My understanding of "self defence" was that there was no other option available - ie. if you can walk away then you can't claim it was a last resort. I'd hate to think that everyone I've ever sworn at had the legal right to then beat me to death in self defence.

Following on from flippers gist let me ask the posters baying for the acquitted man's blood on here whether they want Keith Senior charged for what appears to be a carbon copy of the incident in the match against Saints at Headingley in 2009 when he floored Wilkin with one punch?

I do not make judgments on these things from quotes given by journalists working for the sun. They are no more or less reliable than many posters on here and that is no commendation.

The Judge and the jurors heard all the evidence, saw the faces of the witnesses, listened to the cross examination, were guided on the law by the judge and reached their decision. Why does any ill informed person on here with a poor grasp of the facts based upon reporters versions of events really think they're in a better position to judge than those jurors?

What if he crossed the road to reason with the chap (who on the basis of the evidence appears to have pursued the accused aggressively asking for a fight). Having gone across the road to do so it became apparent that he was about to be attacked and punched the gentleman in an act of self defence?

Remember that great video from the other year with the cage fighting cross dressers punching the young bother causing scrotes on the street? We all cheered that. It looked like natural justice. If the young scrote had, however, been killed by or as a result of that punch what would your view be? I remember the footage and the cross dressing cage fighter (love typing that definition) could have walked away from the aggressive little scrote but he turned back and walked towards him. It's just dumb luck that his punch didn't result in a death and the one in the present case did.

I fail to see why everyone is getting their knickers in a twist. Is it a tragic and sad tale, yes? Has justice been served, yes? It's a cautionary tale but I don't see the need to be baying for any more blood.

hmm.. some good points. re: the Keith Senior incident (im trying to justify this in my own mind) on a soft pitch in front of thousands of ppl including security staff and TV cameras and with a punch barely hard enough to put a similar size man down (i believe Wilkin took a bit of a dive) was never ever going to cause serious injury.

Also in terms of information those quotes where by the prosecuter and not the sun (various other sources had these quotes - the sun was just the first one up on google).

On the baying for blood, I know I would be one calling for a sentence - but the bigger picture is that fights like this one occur ever Friday/ Saturday in nearly every town and city centre - the consequences are frightening and almost never thought about at the time. Something needs to be done to stop these incidents occurring (maybe just better education).

Finally has just justice been served? A man has died at the hands of another man (accident or no) - the man whos hands undeniably caused this death has received no punishment for it.

...because its recognised that there are circumstances where such a thing can happen without blame, self defence being one of those circumstances.



If you don't go looking for trouble then you don't often find it.

Slight issue CPS decide on the evidence to be presented witness etc not the police

I'd have thought that the one that floored BJ Mather was a more appropriate comparison. That was a one punch KO of the highest order, an a bloke much bigger than KS. Actually come to think of it, KS has a bit of a history of ting people...