Manu in the Guardian on injury and arrest

[ellis9]

He pleaded guilty as that what he was advised to do by a law expert saying it would be the best thing to do as they believed the case would be sorted that day as apposed to if he had pleaded not guilty which would mean a hearing would take place during the World Cup, thus meaning missing out on playing in it (although he has anyway). Yes he was wrong to do what he did to the taxi but he hasn't assaulted a police officer by just jerking his arm away from them!

[Tigris]

Your opening sentence "He didn't assault police officers though," is false. He pleaded guilty to this charge. Ergo he and they and the court all agreed that he did!

I could admit to being a cat. Others may agree that I am a cat. It doesn't make me a cat

From my perspective, he is (quite understandably) trying to clear up (as he sees it) the aspect of the incident which carries the most stigma. Is it the most politically astute move to do so? Perhaps not, but Manu is not a politician (nor is he a cat for that matter).

[Soggypitch]

If Manu's story is true and if he had witnesses as stated, then he was palpably wrong to plead guilty.

Bad advice, bad decision; fight your corner if you're in the right.

He now has to live with the consequences of that guilty plea and this belated explanation is badly advised/timed again in my view.

I would have much preferred him to have argued his case in court, with all the facts in the public domain, then if he had still been found guilty of assault, we could have seen that the law is an ass and his reputation would have been far less harmed.

[ellis9]

I tend to agree that he should have pleaded not guilty in court, in normal circumstances but he says that had he done that, the case would be adjourned until whilst the World Cup is on meaning he would miss out on going. I can see why they pleaded guilty for that reason. Manu also says he spoke to Lancaster beforehand who just said we'll see how the court case. Maybe if he had given Manu a proper answer such as if you're found guilty, you won't play for England again for a while, Manu's lawyers could have dealt with things differently.

[Johnnyg]

If Manu's story is true and if he had witnesses as stated, then he was palpably wrong to plead guilty.

Bad advice, bad decision; fight your corner if you're in the right.

He now has to live with the consequences of that guilty plea and this belated explanation is badly advised/timed again in my view.

I would have much preferred him to have argued his case in court, with all the facts in the public domain, then if he had still been found guilty of assault, we could have seen that the law is an ass and his reputation would have been far less harmed.

You are palpably wrong. He risked going to prison.
He has never denied criminal damage or assault of the taxi driver. I very much suspect the police officer's case was rather different to Manu's, namely that she informed him she was a police officer before even approaching him. Think about it; sober evidence of a professional police officer against evidence of various drunk young men, and the defendant already admits criminal damage and assault. Who would you believe if you were being objective?
The point is that a competent barrister would have advised that the assault of the police officer (if reckless rather than deliberate) could be admitted and mitigation offered and the sentencing outcome would probably (as it actually was) end up being no more serious than if he had just pleaded guilty to the assault of the taxi driver and the criminal damage.
However had he pleaded not guilty to assaulting the PO, forced the court to hear a trial and effectively called the officer a liar, then been convicted, he was very much risking prison. Seems to me he received very sensible legal advice. Very easy for Manu to plead guilty and then to say "I didn't do it". He has already persuaded some of you!

[Pellsey]

Sadly, there is a massive difference between law and justice.

IMHO Manu was right to plead guilty, even though he probably wasn't, as the courts are more likely to believe the Police's story than his, and the repercussions of this could have been gaol.

It is good to hear his side, which I would imagine is the truth. IMHO far more likely to believe that the media's slant. Calling "jerking an arm away from a person (at the time unknown that it is a police officer", as ellis9 put it, is not assault and therefore ridiculous.

[Soggypitch]

If Manu's story is true and if he had witnesses as stated, then he was palpably wrong to plead guilty.

Bad advice, bad decision; fight your corner if you're in the right.

He now has to live with the consequences of that guilty plea and this belated explanation is badly advised/timed again in my view.

I would have much preferred him to have argued his case in court, with all the facts in the public domain, then if he had still been found guilty of assault, we could have seen that the law is an ass and his reputation would have been far less harmed.

You are palpably wrong. He risked going to prison.
He has never denied criminal damage or assault of the taxi driver. I very much suspect the police officer's case was rather different to Manu's, namely that she informed him she was a police officer before even approaching him. Think about it; sober evidence of a professional police officer against evidence of various drunk young men, and the defendant already admits criminal damage and assault. Who would you believe if you were being objective?
The point is that a competent barrister would have advised that the assault of the police officer (if reckless rather than deliberate) could be admitted and mitigation offered and the sentencing outcome would probably (as it actually was) end up being no more serious than if he had just pleaded guilty to the assault of the taxi driver and the criminal damage.
However had he pleaded not guilty to assaulting the PO, forced the court to hear a trial and effectively called the officer a liar, then been convicted, he was very much risking prison. Seems to me he received very sensible legal advice. Very easy for Manu to plead guilty and then to say "I didn't do it". He has already persuaded some of you!

I said fight your corner if you're innocent and have witnesses. Otherwise as you say his evidence would not have stood up against the sober ones.

Surely if Manu's story is correct he could possibly have pleaded guilty to the damage and assault on the taxi driver, but denied assaulting the police officers which is a much more serious offence.

[Johnnyg]

If Manu's story is true and if he had witnesses as stated, then he was palpably wrong to plead guilty.

Bad advice, bad decision; fight your corner if you're in the right.

He now has to live with the consequences of that guilty plea and this belated explanation is badly advised/timed again in my view.

I would have much preferred him to have argued his case in court, with all the facts in the public domain, then if he had still been found guilty of assault, we could have seen that the law is an ass and his reputation would have been far less harmed.

You are palpably wrong. He risked going to prison.
He has never denied criminal damage or assault of the taxi driver. I very much suspect the police officer's case was rather different to Manu's, namely that she informed him she was a police officer before even approaching him. Think about it; sober evidence of a professional police officer against evidence of various drunk young men, and the defendant already admits criminal damage and assault. Who would you believe if you were being objective?
The point is that a competent barrister would have advised that the assault of the police officer (if reckless rather than deliberate) could be admitted and mitigation offered and the sentencing outcome would probably (as it actually was) end up being no more serious than if he had just pleaded guilty to the assault of the taxi driver and the criminal damage.
However had he pleaded not guilty to assaulting the PO, forced the court to hear a trial and effectively called the officer a liar, then been convicted, he was very much risking prison. Seems to me he received very sensible legal advice. Very easy for Manu to plead guilty and then to say "I didn't do it". He has already persuaded some of you!

I said fight your corner if you're innocent and have witnesses. Otherwise as you say his evidence would not have stood up against the sober ones.

Surely if Manu's story is correct he could possibly have pleaded guilty to the damage and assault on the taxi driver, but denied assaulting the police officers which is a much more serious offence.

Not necessarily. He could offer mitigation, as he did, that he was reckless and pulled his arms away not realising it was a police officer. Looking at the low sentence the bench must have accepted this was not a true case of assaulting a police officer. To plead not guilty and accuse the officer of lying would have been a very risky strategy. Why risk prison when he was already admitting a much more serious assault on the taxi driver and criminal damage? He and his mates would have made very poor witnesses as they were on the lash.

[Noggs]

Whether or not he had pleaded guilty to the charge relating to the police officers he would still have the charge of criminal damage to contend with. Hence, he would still end up with all the consequences of having a criminal record.

He's certainly growing up the hard way

[chipnchase]

I couldnt believe my eyes when I saw this. The matter was forgotten about pretty much and now he goes on record at a time when rugby is in the spot light.

He could have quite happily chalked it up to experience moved on and kept his head down to focus on getting back in a Tigers shirt. Now he's blown the whole thing up again and potentially destroyed his England career by accusing Lancaster of lieing.

Having said that it may be the press misquoting him, after all the Guardian love to spin a non story however he's once again been naive and done himself no favours by talking to the press in the first place at a time when he's not playing and therefor has no requirement to talk to any media.

Dont be surprised if he goes off to France at the end of the year or even Super 15s. The lad needs some growing up time and being stuck in the Leicester bubble he still doesnt understand the likely reactions to his actions.

[chipnchase]

It is good to hear his side, which I would imagine is the truth.

Yes because everything a Tigers player says is the gospel. I should imagine the truth lays somewhere between the two stories. There is no way he would have been arrested for pulling his arms away, he's a big lad and also drunk at the time of the incident. I'm sure a 'push away' in his head still involves a fairly aggressive / heafty shove to normal people.

[Snorbins]

Now all we need is the police persons story and then get a high profile LinkedIn lawyer to spin it a different direction. Perhaps Manu complimented the police persons blue and white chequered hi-viz?

[Pellsey]

It is good to hear his side, which I would imagine is the truth.

Yes because everything a Tigers player says is the gospel. I should imagine the truth lays somewhere between the two stories. There is no way he would have been arrested for pulling his arms away, he's a big lad and also drunk at the time of the incident. I'm sure a 'push away' in his head still involves a fairly aggressive / heafty shove to normal people.

I was just meaning that his side of the story from his mouth is more likely to be true than that out of a journalist's.

[MurphysLaw]

Why oh why has he gone to the press with this now? The whole thing has been opened up in the media again (including the BBC website).

Imo, another unfortunate decision.

[Iain]

Silly boy. Should not have given this interview, absolutely no good will come of it.

It puts across his version of events, but he's on dodgy ground trying to protest his innocence after a guilty plea.

Even if you think you're right, keeping your mouth shut is the better option here.