HUDDERSFIELD TOWN yobs who brawled with rival fans before a match have been banned from football for at least three years.
The seven were in London to watch Town play Charlton Athletic last October and the bans were handed out at Woolwich Crown Court.
Brothers Brodie and Brook Johnson, Stephen Hunt, 24, Jordan Wood, 18, Andrew Hirst, 28, Shaun McManus, 27, and 21-year-old Jonathon Hellings all admitted affray.
The violence erupted after three Charlton fans went into The Auctioneer pub where the Huddersfield fans were drinking.
Rival fans then clashed outside.
Town’s Football liaison officer David Mickelthwaite identified the defendants from CCTV footage.
All were handed a three-year ban, except Hellings and Hurst who breached a previous order and were given a five year ban.
Breach of the orders could lead to up to six months imprisonment.
His Honour Judge Lees said: “It was a disgraceful incident of violence in a street which you must accept caused tremendous fear to people going about they normal business.
“Seeing people like you behaving in a group in a violent fashion is terrifying. Make no mistake, your pleas of guilty have saved you from an immediate custodial sentence.
0
Comments
However,if you are a fanntasist and steal an old book you get 8 years!!
Northerners!
Read any crime story in any newspaper - and you'll see exactly what I mean.
[url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2010/jun/17/football-hooliganism-laws]
And it wasn't just "a book". That's a bit like someone stealing the crown jewels and then saying, "it's only a hat and a stick".
It means should they go to a football game during their ban they could get up to 6 months imprisonment, not 6 months imprisonments for getting into the fight in the first place.
And it wasn't just "a book". That's a bit like someone stealing the crown jewels and then saying, "it's only a hat and a stick".[/quote]
Still think 8 years is over the top, compared to other sentences handed out on crimes against the person
Hence the reason how this fight started. If the police had not given out a civil ban in the first place then the Charton fans would have been drinking in Charlton that day and not 2 miles away from the ground
You would think so mate but read the link below and find out what the police do. If you go to watch a game with someone that is classed as high risk eventually you will be stopped and asked you name and details by the police. You will then be classed as a high risk supporter yourself and they can take you to court and ask for you to be banned.
Lets just say that you went to the Charlton v Huddersfield game and was nowhere near Greenwich and was in the Liberal club. The police report would say when they take you to court to apply for a ban would say "WSS was seen drinking with Joe Bloggs who is also a high risk supporter when cafc played Hudds. There was violence between the two sets of supporters" They don't actually say you committed a crime but was there on a day when there was trouble between the fans.
As I said earlier, if the police had not banned the person in the 1st place when he committed no crime, then the CAFC fans would have been in Cons or Lib and the Police would have know where everyone was and this trouble would not have happened.
Read the link and then you will get a better Idea
[url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2010/jun/17/football-hooliganism-laws]
"Brook Johnson of Marina Terrace, Golcar, was given a two year curfew between 7pm and 7am on Fridays and Sundays and 3pm to 3am on Saturdays and ordered to pay a £50 fine and £50 in costs".
Now how likely is he to stay in from 7pm on a friday and 3pm on a saturday for TWO YEARS?!!
Also saw this - "Ryan King, 19, Penistone Road, Waterloo, failed to turn up for the hearing and a warrant was issued". What an idiot not turning up!!
Why on earth would you associate with someone who was high risk anyway?
You would think so mate but read the link below and find out what the police do. If you go to watch a game with someone that is classed as high risk eventually you will be stopped and asked you name and details by the police. You will then be classed as a high risk supporter yourself and they can take you to court and ask for you to be banned.
Lets just say that you went to the Charlton v Huddersfield game and was nowhere near Greenwich and was in the Liberal club. The police report would say when they take you to court to apply for a ban would say "WSS was seen drinking with Joe Bloggs who is also a high risk supporter when cafc played Hudds. There was violence between the two sets of supporters" They don't actually say you committed a crime but was there on a day when there was trouble between the fans.
As I said earlier, if the police had not banned the person in the 1st place when he committed no crime, then the CAFC fans would have been in Cons or Lib and the Police would have know where everyone was and this trouble would not have happened.
Read the link and then you will get a better Idea
[url=[url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2010/jun/17/football-hooliganism-laws[/url]][/quote]
Why on earth would you associate with someone who was high risk anyway?[/quote]
An example, A couple of years ago a group of us went to Croydon on a night out. Ended in all of us getting arrested after a fight. My cousin who was with us and had no part to play in this fight but was mearly just there and with us got arrested but released with out charge. The police did not know who he was but now they know his name he is a high risk supporterand has prob never had a fight in his life. So now he is classed as a high risk supporter do u think his friends shouldnt drink with him?
If you went and talked to them all the time yes you would be. And remember just because the police class them as high risk it doesnt mean they are high risk
Surely that fact that these sentences have been made public means that there is not implications on pending court case? Where one case outcome / content affects another there is usually a blanket ban on publication until all matters are closed.