Barton

Burnley Ace · Post by **Burnley Ace** » Fri Dec 03, 2021 11:47 pm

How much is this trial costing? A QC to prosecute a s47 case is a disproportionate waste of money, ridiculous

tarkys_ears · Post by **tarkys_ears** » Fri Dec 03, 2021 11:55 pm

It'll be billed at the going rate.

I'd fancy a crack at the **** myself if I were a QC tbh...

basil6345789 · Post by **basil6345789** » Sat Dec 04, 2021 12:02 am

Just let the 2 men sort it out themselves.

mybloodisclaret · Post by **mybloodisclaret** » Sat Dec 04, 2021 12:19 am

I tend to agree, and it is rather unusual for Queen's Council to prosecute or defend such hearings, however they may have been appointed owing to experience of similar hearings/investigations either for the Crown or defence, hence their appointment. Money is literally being thrown away by this government in the hundreds of millions yet you are surprised that a QC takes a case against a celebrity?

Bullabill · Post by **Bullabill** » Sat Dec 04, 2021 5:28 am

Isn't Dick Barton a special agent? He'd rate a QC.

pushpinpussy · Post by **pushpinpussy** » Sat Dec 04, 2021 7:28 am

I think people are getting confused. Barton will not be eligible for Legal Aid (public funds) due to means testing. He would pass the interest of justice test due to the potential of a custodial sentence. But he would without a doubt fail the means test. He can therefore instruct whoever he wants if he can afford it. On most occasions if the Crown are aware that the Defence have instructed a QC then they will usually do the same.

Hipper · Post by **Hipper** » Sat Dec 04, 2021 10:14 am

basil6345789 wrote: ↑
Sat Dec 04, 2021 12:02 am
Just let the 2 men sort it out themselves.

You mean instead of Queen's Councils it should be Queensbury Rules?

IanMcL · Post by **IanMcL** » Sun Dec 05, 2021 1:01 am

They won today!

Herts Clarets · Post by **Herts Clarets** » Mon Dec 06, 2021 1:47 pm

Money well spent on the QC it would appear...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-s ... e-59513011

Burnley1989 · Post by **Burnley1989** » Mon Dec 06, 2021 1:51 pm

Wow

How’s he got off with that

beddie · Post by **beddie** » Mon Dec 06, 2021 2:11 pm

Its the verdict I expected.

Papabendi · Post by **Papabendi** » Mon Dec 06, 2021 2:29 pm

Interesting look from Joey...

Burnley Ace · Post by **Burnley Ace** » Mon Dec 06, 2021 2:31 pm

Burnley1989 wrote: ↑
Mon Dec 06, 2021 1:51 pm
Wow

How’s he got off with that

Because it was a really weak case that wouldn’t have even got to Court if it hadn’t been such a high profile matter. In essence it was “Barton deliberately shoulder barged the victim being reckless as to the consequences”.

Burnley Ace · Post by **Burnley Ace** » Mon Dec 06, 2021 2:45 pm

“But we aren’t sure it was Barton as the victim didn’t see him and the witnesses weren’t really sure, but Barton was in the vicinity!

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Mon Dec 06, 2021 2:45 pm

If the victim says he didn't see the incident, and there's no film evidence, then it's a big hole for the prosecution to fill.

Peter Loo · Post by **Peter Loo** » Mon Dec 06, 2021 6:02 pm

Pardon my ignorance about the case but was he cleared by a jury vote or just one person’s opinion please.

taio · Post by **taio** » Mon Dec 06, 2021 6:06 pm

Peter Loo wrote: ↑
Mon Dec 06, 2021 6:02 pm
Pardon my ignorance about the case but was he cleared by a jury vote or just one person’s opinion please.

Jury.

Peter Loo · Post by **Peter Loo** » Mon Dec 06, 2021 6:07 pm

Thanks.

Petersa · Post by **Petersa** » Mon Dec 06, 2021 6:12 pm

Who pays the costs?

strayclaret · Post by **strayclaret** » Mon Dec 06, 2021 6:13 pm

Papabendi wrote: ↑
Mon Dec 06, 2021 2:29 pm
Interesting look from Joey...

Thought it was Charlie Chaplin

claret2018 · Post by **claret2018** » Mon Dec 06, 2021 6:27 pm

Have used a QC once in my professional life and they billed £30k an hour. Nice work if you can get it!

Dark Cloud · Post by **Dark Cloud** » Mon Dec 06, 2021 6:32 pm

I genuinely didn't recognise Joey B when I saw some news footage of him outside court the other day until I read the subtitles. Looks like an Oxford professor these days!

bobinho · Post by **bobinho** » Mon Dec 06, 2021 6:33 pm

dsr wrote: ↑
Mon Dec 06, 2021 2:45 pm
If the victim says he didn't see the incident, and there's no film evidence, then it's a big hole for the prosecution to fill.

Makes You wonder how it got the nod to go ahead from the CPS.

Winstonswhite · Post by **Winstonswhite** » Mon Dec 06, 2021 6:41 pm

So now just the one outstanding charge of assaulting his wife?!

elwaclaret · Post by **elwaclaret** » Mon Dec 06, 2021 7:16 pm

claret2018 wrote: ↑
Mon Dec 06, 2021 6:27 pm
Have used a QC once in my professional life and they billed £30k an hour. Nice work if you can get it!

Top of their profession…. But in their case nice work, even before you get it.

AlargeClaret · Post by **AlargeClaret** » Mon Dec 06, 2021 7:38 pm

Did people think Barton was gonna go with the duty solicitor ? He got the best he could afford as would anyone who could afford it when his future in football totally depended on it.

Was a very flimsy case anyway ,you wonder if this would have got anywhere if it didn’t involve JB. Though imagine grassing someone up because you thought they might have pushed you ? the soppy tart

elwaclaret · Post by **elwaclaret** » Mon Dec 06, 2021 7:41 pm

AlargeClaret wrote: ↑
Mon Dec 06, 2021 7:38 pm
Did people think Barton was gonna go with the duty solicitor ? He got the best he could afford as would anyone who could afford it when his future in football totally depended on it.

Was a very flimsy case anyway ,you wonder if this would have got anywhere if it didn’t involve JB. Though imagine grassing someone up because you thought they might have pushed you ? the soppy tart

Think that is the crux. There was no case, but such a splurge of head shaking re Barton and hyped reporting meant that the case had to be SEEN to be answered and dismissed.

Longsidelenny1882 · Post by **Longsidelenny1882** » Mon Dec 06, 2021 7:50 pm

Has the song goes money talks utc

Peter Loo · Post by **Peter Loo** » Mon Dec 06, 2021 8:24 pm

strayclaret wrote: ↑
Mon Dec 06, 2021 6:13 pm
Thought it was Charlie Chaplin

Snap so did I

EarbyClaret · Post by **EarbyClaret** » Mon Dec 06, 2021 9:09 pm

Smart move by Joey - turn up at court facing an assault charge in the guise of an Oxbridge academic

I too can see the Chaplin likeness - my first thought was George Orwell

Burnley1989 · Post by **Burnley1989** » Fri Mar 18, 2022 1:25 pm

Visits court more often than I visit the pub these days and I spend my life in the pub
https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football ... t-26499963

longsidetrumpet · Post by **longsidetrumpet** » Fri Mar 18, 2022 1:29 pm

'Represented Burnley'... tee-hee

Woodleyclaret · Post by **Woodleyclaret** » Fri Mar 18, 2022 2:15 pm

Well done Joey he was one of Sean's better signings

Quickenthetempo · Post by **Quickenthetempo** » Fri Mar 18, 2022 2:35 pm

Woodleyclaret wrote: ↑
Fri Mar 18, 2022 2:15 pm
Well done Joey he was one of Sean's better signings

Are you saying well done for kicking his wife in the head? While holding her down?

The bloke needs locking up.

There's 3 incidents of violence we know of in recent times.
Kicking his wife in the head.
Smacking the Barnsley manager
Fighting on his stag do on the beach.

jrgbfc · Post by **jrgbfc** » Fri Mar 18, 2022 2:50 pm

Must admit reading his book didn't endear me to him. Seemed full of his own self importance, and "look at how intelligent I am". Obviously not that bright given the scrapes he still gets himself into.

Burnley1989 · Post by **Burnley1989** » Fri Mar 18, 2022 2:52 pm

Quickenthetempo wrote: ↑
Fri Mar 18, 2022 2:35 pm
Are you saying well done for kicking his wife in the head? While holding her down?

The bloke needs locking up.

There's 3 incidents of violence we know of in recent times.
Kicking his wife in the head.
Smacking the Barnsley manager
Fighting on his stag do on the beach.

If his books anything to go by, it won’t have been his fault and will have been fully justified…..

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Fri Mar 18, 2022 2:55 pm

jrgbfc wrote: ↑
Fri Mar 18, 2022 2:50 pm
Must admit reading his book didn't endear me to him. Seemed full of his own self importance, and "look at how intelligent I am". Obviously not that bright given the scrapes he still gets himself into.

I think he's actually an intelligent chap.

Being prone to anger isn't mutually exclusive to intelligence, neither is binge drinking.

BurnleyFC · Post by **BurnleyFC** » Fri Mar 18, 2022 3:13 pm

Absolutely loved him when he played for us, but he’s a complete **** bag by the sounds of things and deserves locking up.

John Johnson 1605 · Post by **John Johnson 1605** » Fri Mar 18, 2022 9:05 pm

Not sure how he deserves locking up when the case is still being heard and no verdict has been reached.

Burnley1989 · Post by **Burnley1989** » Fri Mar 18, 2022 9:13 pm

John Johnson 1605 wrote: ↑
Fri Mar 18, 2022 9:05 pm
Not sure how he deserves locking up when the case is still being heard and no verdict has been reached.

pushpinpussy · Post by **pushpinpussy** » Sat Mar 19, 2022 7:46 am

This case is turning very interesting now. The Crown are not calling his wife as a witness and are just relying on the Body worn footage and 999 call.

The Court have deemed that the 999 call and BWF form part of res gestae and therefore admissible as hearsay.

The Crown will not drop this so in my experience this is what will happen.

The matter has been adjourned.

Some discussions will now take place between the Crown and defence in which the defence will offer a basis of plea to the Crown. This will be on the defence terms.

If this is not accepted by the Crown it will go to trial.

Id still make a s.78 PACE application to the court (if not already done) on the basis he will not get a fair trial (Article 6 HRA) as the complainant cannot be cross examined and the evidence therefore should be excluded.

Burnley Ace · Post by **Burnley Ace** » Sat Mar 19, 2022 8:19 am

pushpinpussy wrote: ↑
Sat Mar 19, 2022 7:46 am
.

Id still make a s.78 PACE application to the court (if not already done) on the basis he will not get a fair trial (Article 6 HRA) as the complainant cannot be cross examined and the evidence therefore should be excluded.

Whilst it’s interesting that there is also no mention of any statements from others present and probably a no comment or denial (possibly putting forward self defence or her recollection is impaired by the amount she had drunk) in interview I don’t think he will get much help from HR or ECJ

https://theconversation.com/amp/legal-e ... int-132388

Presumably the evidence or lack of it has been reviewed by the CPS at a sufficiently senior level and they think it should proceed.

pushpinpussy · Post by **pushpinpussy** » Sat Mar 19, 2022 10:41 am

Presumably the evidence or lack of it has been reviewed by the CPS at a sufficiently senior level and they think it should proceed.
[/quote]

yes definitely however any attempt to prosecute a case based just on Res Gestae will be scrutinised by the court for the possibility that the prosecution are avoiding calling the complainant for fear of her being unreliable.

Billy Balfour · Post by **Billy Balfour** » Sat Mar 19, 2022 11:50 am

I loved what he did for us and thought he had turned over a new chapter in his life and everyone deserves another chance, especially when they are well into adulthood, but no, he didn't turn over a new chapter. He's a nasty piece of work. Some people might still be hoodwinked because he can string a coherent sentence or two together, but there's just no getting away from what he really is. BTW, I'm not even talking about the current proceedings.

Burnley1989 · Post by **Burnley1989** » Sat Mar 19, 2022 6:12 pm

To put it into comparison, let’s look back at the outrage when Kurt Zouma kicked a cat…

Played for Burnley though so it’s ok

NRC · Post by **NRC** » Sat Mar 19, 2022 6:38 pm

I’ve had to use a QC twice, and it didn’t cost me anything like 30k/hour

Middle-agedClaret · Post by **Middle-agedClaret** » Sat Mar 19, 2022 10:58 pm

pushpinpussy wrote: ↑
Sat Mar 19, 2022 7:46 am

Id still make a s.78 PACE application to the court (if not already done) on the basis he will not get a fair trial (Article 6 HRA) as the complainant cannot be cross examined and the evidence therefore should be excluded.

A very sad affair.

KRBFC · Post by **KRBFC** » Sun Mar 20, 2022 12:00 am

How the hell has he still got a managerial job?

CharlieinNewMexico · Post by **CharlieinNewMexico** » Sun Mar 20, 2022 7:46 am

KRBFC wrote: ↑
Sun Mar 20, 2022 12:00 am
How the hell has he still got a managerial job?

Not been convicted of anything? (That his current employers didn’t know about)?

JohnDearyMe · Post by **JohnDearyMe** » Sun Mar 20, 2022 7:55 am

CharlieinNewMexico wrote: ↑
Sun Mar 20, 2022 7:46 am
Not been convicted of anything? (That his current employers didn’t know about)?

Noticed that Bristol Rovers were on the edge of the automatic promotion spots. Pretty congested between the top 10