Saints Throw Their Weight

[Nik]

Behind a bid to appeal against Callum Clark's suspension.

It is in todays Guardian, if they do appeal i hope Clark gets longer - you can be contrite to a panel - after the offense - but the guy backed off knowing what he'd done - just as he did when he head butted a kiwi when playing for England U20's.

Its bewildering to think they could appeal after such an appalling injury has been caused - just goes to show that they are running a business and do not give a flying fart at the human cost....... SHAME ON SAINTS and i hope we, as a club, do not condone any of our players if they committ such an act......

[WhitecapTiger]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/ap ... -clark-ban

"Northampton seem to certain to contest the 32-week ban on their flanker Calum Clark. Their director of rugby, Jim Mallinder, gave a strong hint that, with the RFU disciplinary panel accepting that Clark had not intended to break the arm of Leicester's hooker Rob Hawkins in the LV Cup final a fortnight ago, and the remorse Clark had shown, Northampton were likely to throw their weight behind an appeal."

'Seem certain'. 'Strong Hint'. But nothing to say definitively.

There is too much weight given to 'remorse' these days. Hard to actually prove it - a bit like intent.

[CitizenSmiff]

I can't make any sense of this; Clark basically committed GBH and got off with a ban that'll only keep him out for a fraction of next season, and Mallinder thinks that's grounds for an appeal? He should be running for president of the Judge Blackett fan club!

[jgriffin]

If an appeal is made, then Saints are morally bankrupt. If it succeeds, the RFU is.
Blackett should've stuck to the full whack. What's the limitations on complaints to the constabulary over GBH? Perhaps Tigers fans could make one! It doesn't have to be Hawkins, just a concerned citizen.

[Bill W (2)]

If an appeal is made, then Saints are morally bankrupt. If it succeeds, the RFU is.
.

I agree.

In a somewhat perverse way I do hope Saints do appeal though.

It will allow the appeal panel to confirm Blackets approach to sentencing (52 weeks plus the period of Hawkins being unable to play - then halve it for guilty plea and remorse = 32 weeks) or subtitute a possibly more reasonable one (52 weeks halved for guilty and remorse plus period of Hawkins being unable to play = 38 weeks).

[silverfish]

We find out tomorrow anyway - the appeal deadline is 12 noon Tuesday. As for GBH, Blackett says "police intervention is unlikely as the Player did not have the requisite mens rea to have committed a criminal offence".

I'd be very disappointed if Saints would squander whatever goodwill is left towards them in the rugby community by an appeal against a sentence that seems on the light side of reasonable already.

[Hot_Charlie]

Brave. Considering he effectively got a 50% "discount" to the 64 week tariff because his previous offence(s) were discounted as they occured when he was only 17 years old, I'd hope, as an example, that any appeal would be seen in a very poor light, and maybe allow the ban to serve its full length.

[bluntiger]

Brave. Considering he effectively got a 50% "discount" to the 64 week tariff because his previous offence(s) were discounted as they occured when he was only 17 years old, I'd hope, as an example, that any appeal would be seen in a very poor light, and maybe allow the ban to serve its full length.

You are referring to the 2008 IRB U20 World Cup when he was red-carded for head-butting a Kiwi in the final .... when he was 19 years old! So it shouldn't have been ignored and he didn't warrent the mitigation and full discount.

[TigerAlex]

As for GBH, Blackett says "police intervention is unlikely as the Player did not have the requisite mens rea to have committed a criminal offence".

I am under the impression that 'mens rea' is a bit of a subjective term. Just because JJB doesn't think he has 'mens rea' doesn't mean that a judge and jury wouldn't think he has 'mens rea.' Did he intentionally bend Hawkins' arm back? Yes. He admits that. Did he intend to injure him? (but not necessarily to the extent of breaking his arm)? That's the debatable bit. Clark claims he was trying to pull Hawkins off the ball. I, and many other people who have actually played rugby, would say that if you were trying to free the ball, he could have just lifted his arm and not pulled it back. Or that if you were actually trying to clear someone off the ball, you wouldn't be trying to pull them in such a direction that they would end up having to go back over the ball. The question, then, is who would be believed? Clark is never going to say that he bent the arm back to cause injury but we can only speculate.

Take the rugby player who was jailed for breaking an opponent's jaw with a punch. Obviously, the only reason you would punch someone would be to hurt them in some way. However, I very much doubt that the player in question meant to break the other guy's jaw (or at least, I doubt that he said that he intended to break the jaw). The court still found him guilty. If a court were to reject Clark's defence that he was just trying to free up the ball and decided that he pulled the arm back in an attempt to cause some kind of pain or injury (even if the intent wasn't to break Hawkins' arm), I would imagine, based on the above case, that this would provide enough of a 'mens rea' for him to be convicted.

Does someone who is more legally qualified than me think this makes sense? Or have I got the wrong end of the stick with all of this?

[silverfish]

You are referring to the 2008 IRB U20 World Cup when he was red-carded for head-butting a Kiwi in the final .... when he was 19 years old! So it shouldn't have been ignored and he didn't warrent the mitigation and full discount.

This is an excellent point: Clark's council specifically says the headbutt should be discounted "because it was five years old and committed when the Player was under 18" both of which are wrong. Yet another reason not to appeal, I can't believe they'll do it.

[Knightonian]

To some extent the judge is right that this is the salient point, however this would be the jurys decision ...

If you wish to look at it from a criminal perspective.. Clark would never admit to the mens rea.

In my opinion it would be the role the jury to decide whether Clark had the necessary Mens Rea, if he intended to harm Hawkins to ANY extent then GBH would be made out.

The law is very clear that you take your victim as you find them, if he intended to break the arm its Section 18 (GBH with intent).

In a criminal perspective the head but would be bad character and used to support the prosecution case.

........

It all makes you wonder what leniency would someone who had never been in trouble got...

I sometimes wonder if we truely have lost sight of what being of good character is .... its the Rory Underwoods or Gary Linekers...

[kingol22]

In my opinion it would be the role the jury to decide whether Clark had the necessary Mens Rea, if he intended to harm Hawkins to ANY extent then GBH would be made out.

Has he not already admitted that he intended to harm Hawkins? He pleaded guilty to knowingly hyperextending his arm.

[jgriffin]

Most prosecutors I've encountered (admittedly over 20 years ago) used the 'reasonable person' - "any reasonable person on witnessing the defendant's actions would form the opinion that this was unprovoked, intentional and meant to cause the complainant harm". Result - GBH and a holiday at HMP.

[Smudge]

Once again I find myself agreeing with JGriffin. It must be something in the air!

[Smurphswillgetya]

I think people are being silly talking about court cases. It is a slippery slope to start calling for court case for incidents that happen on the pitch. If we are going down this route then every time there is a punch up on the pitch should the players be taken to court? As I have said on another thread, Cockers has said the judgement has been made, let's move on.