...his defence lawyer said he was just "joking around and that he struck Sir Alex while shadow boxing."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6991198.stm
2007-09-12 04:51:41 · 6 answers · asked by A True Gentleman 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Law Enforcement & Police
My point is, do defence lawyers usually offer such weak and laughable excuses for their clients?
2007-09-12 05:03:00 · update #1
I'm inclined to believe defense attorneys will say a lot of things in an effort to distort the actions of their clients.
Fortunately in this case the offender plead guilty!
2007-09-12 05:08:50 · answer #1 · answered by KC V ™ 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Sir Alex may be 66, but I still wouldn't fancy my chances against him! Guy must have been totally mullered. If he was truly joking around, it would still not give him a defence as he was acting recklessly. He was guilty.
As a defence lawyer myself, that would be mitigation as opposed to a defence, and I do not think it was actually put forward as a defence.
2007-09-12 11:59:19 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
No, that's called mitigation, not a defence. Assault is still assault no mater the intent. I imagine he is offering that up in the hope to get a light sentence for his client, not an acquittal.
2007-09-12 12:14:34 · answer #3 · answered by Jack 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think he would probably have got off more lightly if he had hit an ordinary member of the public in similar circumstances, or if it had in fact been a look alike.
2007-09-12 12:04:43 · answer #4 · answered by Spacephantom 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
assault is an offence and he should be charged,it was his defence lawyer who said he was joking and not the thug who assaulted him.so charge,charge,charge him it may help to put a stop to assaults on innocent people.being drunk is no excuse either
2007-09-12 12:01:05 · answer #5 · answered by dellboy 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
this is news to me! when did this happen like??
2007-09-12 12:04:02 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋