Tomlin

[NcnsBcfc]

26 minutes ago, hoxton casual said:

Ok thanks for clarifying. I did not understand the distinction. Hope he gets his life back on track.

Any assault that causes a serious injury without the use of a weapon would generally be a s20.

To get a s18, you would have to prove the intent to cause the serious injury ie use of knife or weapon, and they knew that by using that weapon they would cause serious injury.

I'm gueasing that Tomlin's assault is punching and kicking of a victim, that probably caused some form of broken bones (cheekbones/jaws/skulls usually).

The severity of the assault will dictate whether heard in Crown(indictable) or mags (summary).

S18 is only indictable. S20 is either way. Ie can be summary or.indictable. some people opt for a jury trial in Crown as they think they will have a better chance of getting off.

Hope that helps.

[Chalkie]

Tomlin - facing the bench on September 18 but back to sitting on it today. 

[WhistleHappy]

1 hour ago, hoxton casual said:

Ok thanks for clarifying. I did not understand the distinction. Hope he gets his life sentence .

That's a bit harsh! 

 

 

(PS .. soz for the edit  )

[nebristolred]

I'm unsure as to the specific CPS requirements but with regards to the actual law, technically you don't have to cause that much damage to inflict GBH. Technically just breaking skin with a pin can count, though in reality I'd imagine it's something substantially worse than that for the CPS to actually press ahead with it. It's a very old law which doesn't really serve the correct purpose when literally read, but case law makes it more relevant.

It's difficult to guess exactly what he could have done, though as another poster has said chances are it will have been some sort of broken bone based on likelihood with other cases. Incidentally, other injuries which can constitute ABH (the step below GBH without intent) include cutting someones hair off, and causing psychological harm with no physical blemishes.

[italian dave]

17 hours ago, JonDolman said:

A few Cardiff fans seem to think we might be in trouble for not disclosing this when we sold him. Surely not.

I'd assumed that it was precisely because of his inclination for GBH that Colin wanted to sign him.

[Ivorguy]

All very sad.  Another gifted player, with too much money too young, and lack of wise advice and management. Sad comment on modern football really.  

I feel particularly sad for his family

[Nibor]

I was against selling Tomlin but it looks like the club got this one right and it's all much clearer now why he wasn't being involved.  Well done Mark Ashton and LJ.  We need to replace him with someone who has some real quality in the middle though.

[Garland's Perm]

I don't understand what the basis of any claim by Cardiff would be.  There is no 'utmost good faith' requirement to disclose all the facts and it is up to the Blueturds to undertake any due diligence.  If the GBH charge was not a positive attraction to Colin signing the alleged perpetrator perhaps Sun Tan will be asking his manager why background checks were not undertaken. 

[Lanterne Rouge]

2 hours ago, Ivorguy said:

All very sad.  Another gifted player, with too much money too young, and lack of wise advice and management. Sad comment on modern football really.  

I feel particularly sad for his family

Just couldn`t resist could you?

[Ivorguy]

1 minute ago, Red Right Hand said:

Just couldn`t resist could you?

I find this response very sad and misguided, as I find the position Tomlin is in.  Be a little more understanding of a man who is in a most difficult position, not all of it of his own making.

PS When I refer to advice and management I am, of course, referring to all the clubs he has played for, not just us. It is a problem of modern football, not just a City problem

[BobBobSuperBob]

3 minutes ago, Ivorguy said:

I find this response very sad and misguided, as I find the position Tomlin is in.  Be a little more understanding of a man who is in a most difficult position, not all of it of his own making.

PS When I refer to advice and management I am, of course, referring to all the clubs he has played for, not just us. It is a problem of modern football, not just a City problem

Maybe , just maybe Tomlin is somebody who has failed to utilise the natural,ability he was gifted with and if he didn't have that ability and opportunity to have been a professional footballer , would be propping up the bar down the local whilst wondering whether to bother looking for a Job, having been sacked from the previous 3 

Not the brightest spark around and Maybe , just maybe he's virtually unmanageable

As much as I think LJs man management is clearly lacking I don't blame him re Tomlin at all

[Guest]

4 hours ago, nebristolred said:

I'm unsure as to the specific CPS requirements but with regards to the actual law, technically you don't have to cause that much damage to inflict GBH. Technically just breaking skin with a pin can count, though in reality I'd imagine it's something substantially worse than that for the CPS to actually press ahead with it. It's a very old law which doesn't really serve the correct purpose when literally read, but case law makes it more relevant.

It's difficult to guess exactly what he could have done, though as another poster has said chances are it will have been some sort of broken bone based on likelihood with other cases. Incidentally, other injuries which can constitute ABH (the step below GBH without intent) include cutting someones hair off, and causing psychological harm with no physical blemishes.

There's a slight nuance. What you're talking about is wounding. Wounding and GBH are distinct offences which are dealt with under the same section of law; it says "maliciously wounds or causes GBH..."

You're right wounding is breaking of the skin. In practice it's not a pin *****, but a substantial wound (think "grievous" really). Most others like superficial cuts would be dealt with under ABH. 

So if s.18 or s.20, you can be sure the injury suffered was not trivial. 

[Lanterne Rouge]

Picked up by the BBC now

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-40986198

[NcnsBcfc]

40 minutes ago, 29AR said:

There's a slight nuance. What you're talking about is wounding. Wounding and GBH are distinct offences which are dealt with under the same section of law; it says "maliciously wounds or causes GBH..."

You're right wounding is breaking of the skin. In practice it's not a pin *****, but a substantial wound (think "grievous" really). Most others like superficial cuts would be dealt with under ABH. 

So if s.18 or s.20, you can be sure the injury suffered was not trivial. 

You're absolutely right.

Part of the point to prove of any gbh is the grevious nature of the injury. The wound therefore has to be of a serious nature.

There are three categories of wounds for sentencing guidelines, and three categories within those for the actions of the offender/long term impact on victim etc. The barristers will always argue where the defendants action fall (eg this is a category 2 rather than 3, and it's a b rather than c etc). They all have a massive impact on any sentence.

At the end of the day. Someone has suffered a serious njury as a result of Tomlin's alleged actions.

It will all come out eventually I'm sure.

[SStandUp]

People slating Johnson last year for not playing him, but after all he was covering for the bloke!!!! 

 

Judt goes to show, as much as fans think they know the on goings, we actually know very little! Not all as it seems buy a long shot!