You're wrong, in part.

Although you are right in relation to whether it is a matter for the police (and then the CPS), the RFL can influence the decision. In assessing the public interest, the penalty imposed by another body can be taken into consideration, as can the views of those involved. The victim has said he's bears no malice and I expect he does not support a court case. Saints have said they will see what the outcome of it all it before they make a decision, so it sounds like they will let it lie if Flower cops for a proper punishment. If the RFL comes down heavy, it is less likely that a court case will follow, which is where it is a matter for them. If you look at the GMP tweet, they said they were working "with" the RFL, not looking at interviewing anyone. So the RFL will be under no illusion that they have to come down hard to avoid a player being taken to court following an incident in the highest profile game of the year.

It's not an affray. If you look at the definition of affray, it states that it occurs when a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene would fear violence. The case of R-v-Sanchez (199icon_cool.gif made it clear that the purpose of an affray is to protect an innocent bystander, not the person being attacked, as an assault charge can be used then. To give an example, someone hits someone in a pub, it's an assault. But if it spreads, and chairs start flying, it is an affray too, as anyone there is at risk of being hit. Or when one group attacks another group.

As I said earlier, the tricky part is deciding the level of assault. The punch that is the problem caused no apparent injury, so it is a common assault, and is there a merit in a low-level charge when the defendant has already been significantly punished by the game's governing body? But you can't dissect an attack like that, so you have to look at everything, and everything up until that second punch was just routine rugby stuff.

OK without having a legal battle there were 70,000+people of reasonable firmness present at the scene who by the actions could have feared violence, if people are fighting innocent bystanders can fear for there safety the crowd is no different. As soon as he punched the opposition the assault and battery is made out the CPS would assess the level of charge based on the injury and intent etc, to my mind there is plenty of intent available through the media. I disagree with you that a criminal court would take a penalty from another body into consideration although I do accept it could be part of any mitigation. We will see how it pans out but the bottom line is its not good for the sport in any shape or form.

You are challenging slugger with a legal point ?

You're wrong. I don't mind having a legal discussion. I've been a Senior Crown Prosecutor for sixteen years, I have them every day. I enjoy them. The innocent bystander has to fear violence against themselves, and no one of reasonable firmness in that crowd believed that Ben Flower was about to start attacking the crowd. It isn't about whether the bystander would fear violence being used per se, but violence against themselves. There are frequently situations where affray would be very convenient but can't be used because it is just two people fighting.

You are right that the response of the RFL is relevant in a court for mitigation only, but the discussion was about whether it should be taken to court, not what would happen when he got there. The response of the RFL, as well as the views of the victim, are relevant for that decision. For example, if common assault is the preferred charge, you would be entitled to consider the whole point of a court case where the sentence (other than the prospect of prison) would be nowhere near that imposed by the RFL. The point of Eric Cantona's appeal for the crowd incident (which he won) was that he should not be made an example of but should be treated as a man of no previous convictions or cautions (which would apply to Flower, I presume). Add in the more combative nature of rugby league and the preceding incident, what penalty would be imposed? Those are relevant considerations, and those involved in the decision will take into account what the RFL do in making it.

As an example, let's say a bloke gets involves in an argument and punches someone. Straight assault, prosecute, no issue. But what if the victim doesn't want the person prosecuted, and the assailant was provoked, and the impact of a prosecution would cost him his job, and then his home so he can't pay the mortgage? Don't prosecute. All part of the public interest test.

Seriously? I was there. I did not fear any violence from Flower's punch. I'm slow but I reckon I could have avoided him if he'd come my way from section 2402.

The problem with this incident is that it was on tv at a major event, so everyone suddenly becomes a solicitor and judge. Same as those that watch X Factor, Strictly and Dancing on Ice, in 5 minutes viewing know more than the professionals about a pirouette and grand jete.

There is no doubt Flower had time to pull out of the second punch given Hohaia was out cold, but equally, in the heat of the incident, people don't always act in the same way they do when watching tv in an arm chair.
I can honestly say, if I was Flower and Hohaia had done what he did to me, I'd have punched him too. The way he got off so quickly after the second showed he knew what he had done but it's too late then. (Clearly in my case my punch would not have knocked him out and I'd have probably been battered in return but you do what you do in the heat of action)

If this gets to a criminal process of any kind, sport in general will be affected.
Should Roy Keane have been convicted for a potential career ending foul on Haaland? He admitted in his book what he was trying to do.
Should a rugby Union forward, using his studs to get the ball be convicted of assault? Drawing blood in that situation is pretty easy (following the rules) but if you did it in the street it would be an assault and possible GBH.

There is a lot to consider.
Best case for me. Flower gets a decent ban (imho 8 games is enough) and to be honest, Hohaia should get something for an off the ball incident. Probably a fine. You can't say "concussion sufficient punishment" in this case.

I've just watched it again, and actually, the still shots make it look far worse than it was.
Flower may not have known he was out cold at that stage.
They were still in contact with each other when Hohaia fell to the floor and Flower was pulling away when he threw another punch.
The still looks like he has stood up and then gone back for a punch but the video looks like it's all one movement.

It's a small thing but it makes a difference to the implied intent.

Still deserves a ban but no police investigation needed. It's all there to be seen.

I don't think Liam Farrell would agree with you

There is no question there was definite and malicious intent on the second punch. Flower positioned and lined hohai up very well while he was on the floor using his other arm to hold him in place. In that moment flower knew exactly what he was doing.

As for hohai been unconscious. I've only seem it a few times but he looked more disorientated than unconscious.

If Lance doesn't want police action I would rather see education take place rather than criminal action. I'm not disputing arguments over if it had happened up town etc. The principle in this for me is somehow trying to turn it into a positive. Arrest, caution, charge, fine and or whatever happened in criminal justice world doesn't turn this into a positive. Albeit I wouldn't argue if that happened.

I would like Ben to visit X amount of Schools talking in assemblies about controlled aggression, behaviour, choices and consequences. Tell the Pupils that the choices you make today are who you are tomorrow. Tell them about rugby league and how the players display controlled aggression and are respectful and shake hands after battle. Then tell them about his choice. The choice that let down himself, family, team mates, fans and rugby league as a whole. His team mates had battled for approximately 30 games to play in the biggest game of the season. Back room staff, trainers and other members of the club have all been on that journey. Over 25,000 Fans have saved and payed for tickets and made the trip to watch their team.

Yet all that was ruined by one choice. Explain it is something that he will have to live with for the rest of his life. He will then have his own emotions of what happened in the changing rooms and days and weeks after. His sole actions that day cost Wigan and everybody associated with them. Schools often focus on children making the correct choices and look at consequences of actions. Then let the little devils loose with some awkward questions as only kids can!!!

It's kind of a restorative justice approach.

There should also be a lengthy ban to accompany his actions.

As I've said, I'm not prepared to say what my opinion is, but it could be said, and would be said by some, that this post sums up a sensible, proportionate and constructive response. Others might say, quite reasonably, that they disagree.

Indeed Slugger, opinions will always vary. People will look at it from different angles. Someone may have been punished criminally for a similar assault in the community and want a similar fate here. Others are more lenient and some would want the death penalty.

I would hope 100% of people would say the second punch was entirely wrong and the only thing to discuss here is the course of action.

It will be interesting to see the full outcome.

Flower charged with a grade F offence which is minimum 8 matches
Hohaia has been charged with a grade B which is 1-2 games

Personally I think it would have fallen inbetweeen those 2, with an ABH rather than GBH but l'd give him a little longer ban 10-12 games.Like you stated above, 8 games is the mininum for a Grade F so I'd be surprised if they gave him that. Hohaia will probabaly just get a token game ban after what he's been charged with.

As far as the Police getting involved, I think it wil set a dangerous precedent in the game.

Just to clarify, the bit you quoted about doing it in the street means GBH refers to most things that go on in a game of rugby.
We are not suggesting that no one tackles the opposition hard, but if you just ran up to someone and did it in the street, you'd be in trouble.

You can't apply that scenario to an incident on the field as bad because you wouldn't be able to do it in the street.
Clearly if you bring a gun on the field and shoot someone, you will be in trouble, whether playing a game or not, but it isn't a blanket rule.

You've lost me mate, alI I was doing is extending on your point, that say if he was caught on Westgate on CCCTV imo he'd get done for ABH rather than GBH which is is for a more serious attack and if I remember rightly is determined by intent, ie, did you mean to KO someone. Like I said at the bottom this hasn't got anything to do with the Police anyway, just a hypothetical scenario. It's not very often ona RL field you watch someone get KO'd twice.

Ok to explain I didn't mean from Flowers punch but the effect it had on the crowd escalating others thus people would be in fear.

Ok I respect your opinion I don't think it will hit the legal process other than the RL. If it does we can come back to the man on the Clapham omnibus

A colleague once mistakenly referred to that test, in a slip of the tongue, as "the man on the Clapham Common", who might have a whole range of different views!

I think you're right. Once it has all calmed down and the RFL have hit Flower hard, I think that will be the end of it.

The biggest problem for the RFL is that it was the last game of the season, so no new news for a while to take the focus away.
Mid season it would be a day or so and then talking about the next game.

What/who is the man on the Clapham omnibus? Never heard that one before.

Is it not a [ihypothetical[/i bystander of reasonable firmness?

[url=http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/public_order_offences/I found this[/url

and one dated 1999 where no violence was used - just folk wandering around with petrol bombs - must be England [url=http://www.rjerrard.co.uk/law/cases/expartem.htmHERE[/url

Has to be more to it than assault - it has drawn the attention of quite a few,it seems.

Yes, that's why I used the phrase "would"; i.e, if that person were present. The person doesn't have to be present but it must also be a situation where the person could be there. For instance, a fight in a house with only two people present wouldn't be an affray as why would an innocent bystander be there, hypothetical or not? You couldn't say in the rugby situation, for example, what if the bystander was standing next to Flower? You have to take reality into account, not just import the hypothetical bystander into any given situation.

The wording of Affray is used or threatened violence, so yes, no need for actual violence. Let's say a group of away fans run down towards the Western terrace towards the North Stand, screaming and swearing, making threats, but back off when a line of stewards appear. That could be an affray. Anyone in the North Stand would be entitled to fear violence even though there wasn't actual violence.

As the guidance you linked to states, it tends to be used where it is either a larger scale incident or becomes somewhat indiscriminate.

From a very old case. Used to describe the concept of objective reasonableness, i.e., the man in the street. How would it look to the man on the Clapham omnibus, etc. A different test to the "man on the night bus to Normy".

That's different, the Police didn't have enough evidence to charge me!

Just watched it at normal speed on a Vine. As bad as it is, it looks less bad at normal speed, in that he punches LH and then follows through as an almost continuous thing. The slow motion replay we've seen makes it look so much more premeditated, but at normal speed it looks like Flower is just having a fight that he perhaps doesn't realise in the heat of the moment he has already won.