Justice seen to be done

Hitchens

A landscape gardener who attacked two thieves he caught trying to steal from his business was cleared of grievous bodily harm in just 20 minutes today.
Andrew Woodhouse, 44, was accused of using excessive force when he broke the arms and legs of one and rugby tackled the other, Cardiff Crown Court heard.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2544671/Cleared-20-minutes-Businessman-defended-property-fuel-burglars-fighting-against-fence-post.html

Well done to the jury, a victory for common sense...........and the Prosecuter should be sacked!

My name is URL

lol... the state of your man in the multi-colored casts.

He'll think twice about robbing someone again.. maybe

wandatowell

Would hate to think what would have been the verdict in an Irish court.


Though a £75 fine is a bit of a joke.

nbar12

he deserves to be knighted

whupdedo

Hahahaha priceless, good enough for the scumbags

kneemos

Wonder if they could bring a civil action,presumably so.

darkpagandeath

This stuff really annoys me scum stealing from you the when stopped their crying being innocent victims ......

dxhound2005

wandatowell wrote: »

Would hate to think what would have been the verdict in an Irish court.


Though a £75 fine is a bit of a joke.

What do you think the verdict would have been? I would think it would have been exactly the same since we already have a precedent here. Very similar circumstances.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056549268

blaze1

Should have put the post through his kneecaps.

Well done the jury.

end of the road

Hitchens wrote: »

Well done to the jury, a victory for common sense...........

no, he got lucky, its no victory for anything.

Hitchens wrote: »

the Prosecuter should be sacked!

why? for doing his/her job? jesus, they can't win can they? they do their job and you want them sacked

Ruu

Hope the fish escaped unharmed.

LeBash

Pity he didnt break the other guys legs as well.

It would mean the coppers would reduce the call outs for about 8 weeks.

As for any solicitor who defends what clearly are a no goodnics, when i take over they will be hung for aidding and abetting crime.

CaSCaDe711

Common sense 1 - 0 Filths

dr.bollocko

He should mention the case to his insurance company. Should probably reduce his premiums when it comes to renewal time.

Sir Arthur Daley

Well done Andrew the scum got what they deserved.

Rough Sleeper

Businessman who defended his property from fuel burglars and fighting against them with a fence post

Good to see that the Mail, typically viewed as a xenophobic establishment, is showing its egalitarian side by allowing non-native English speakers have a go at penning their headlines.

dxhound2005

This is the least surprising result of any court case I can remember. As long as we have the jury system here and in the UK there is no chance of any case like this succeeding.

wp_rathead

Hitchens wrote: »

and the Prosecuter should be sacked![/I][/B]

ehh, why?

mad muffin

He looks like your man from Minder.

kylith

LeBash wrote: »

As for any solicitor who defends what clearly are a no goodnics, when i take over they will be hung for aidding and abetting crime.

Like it or not the guys are entitled to a fair trial, and that includes a lawyer to defend them. You'd be glad of that rule if you were ever accused of a crime.

darkpagandeath

kylith wrote: »

Like it or not the guys are entitled to a fair trial, and that includes a lawyer to defend them. You'd be glad of that rule if you were ever accused of a crime.

I take issue with people getting free legal aid with like 50 previous convictions. There should be a cut off (insert number) ? Then you have to pay for your own defence as your obviously not law abiding and should not be able to avail of free legal aid. Maybe off topic.

BillyMitchel

darkpagandeath wrote: »

I take issue with people getting free legal aid with like 50 previous convictions. There should be a cut off (insert number) ? Then you have to pay for your own defence as your obviously not law abiding and should not be able to avail of free legal aid. Maybe off topic.

And completely ridiculous. What if they are innocent and get 10years. Tough luck because you were already found guilty before?

More holes in that argument than my lucky boxer shorts.

darkpagandeath

BillyMitchel wrote: »

And completely ridiculous. What if they are innocent and get 10years. Tough luck because you were already found guilty before?

More holes in that argument than my lucky boxer shorts.

I doubt that as if you have 50 previous convictions I'm guessing you don't go to jail for 10 years each time. And the odds for example a shoplifter suddenly turning to murder ?

BillyMitchel

darkpagandeath wrote: »

I doubt that as if you have 50 previous convictions I'm guessing you don't go to jail for 10 years each time. And the odds for example a shoplifter suddenly turning to murder ?

Going off topic and the question again. Who said each time? Do you have any idea what you are on about?

forgotten password

and when justice is gone; there's always hope

darkpagandeath

BillyMitchel wrote: »

Going off topic and the question again. Who said each time? Do you have any idea what you are on about?

Scumbags with loads of convictions getting free legal aid I thought that was obvious.

BillyMitchel

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Scumbags with loads of convictions getting free legal aid I thought that was obvious.

So the next time they are accused of something they have no right to a fair trial? What if its a murder charge and they are innocent? If they already have convections they'll have paid their dues to society but you want them to face a murder charge without a barrister to represent them in court?

darkpagandeath

BillyMitchel wrote: »

So the next time they are accused of something they have no right to a fair trial? What if its a murder charge and they are innocent? If they already have convections they'll have paid their dues to society but you want them to face a murder charge without a barrister to represent them in court?

No as I said if you have say 50 previous convictions your probably a petty criminal doing similar crimes all the time. I doubt they would as I said turn from shoplifting to murder. If your a convicted shoplifter for example with crap loads of convictions and being charged with shoplifting again, Then no no you cant have free legal aid pay for your own defence.

foggy_lad

BillyMitchel wrote: »

So the next time they are accused of something they have no right to a fair trial? What if its a murder charge and they are innocent? If they already have convections they'll have paid their dues to society but you want them to face a murder charge without a barrister to represent them in court?

What is wrng with the scum paying for their own defence when clearly they are scum and not of good or any real worthwhile character.

Son Of A Vidic

wandatowell wrote: »

Would hate to think what would have been the verdict in an Irish court.

Prison for Mr. Woodhouse and massive compo for the scumbags.

Cantona's Collars

One of the thieves is complaining that he's the real victim,aaww - shouldn't have been stealing diesel so.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2546573/Im-victim-Shameless-thief-says-justice-let-victim-battered-cleared.html

Hitchens

zerks wrote: »

One of the thieves is complaining that he's the real victim,aaww - shouldn't have been stealing diesel so.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2546573/Im-victim-Shameless-thief-says-justice-let-victim-battered-cleared.html

Heartbreaking :rolleyes: