Gallagher back in Jail

Very disappointed; I have stuck up for the big fella throughout this as I was convinced that there must be a decent reason for appeal but the story as reported suggests it was a pretty tenuous reason that was being argued & there was never a chance the appeal would be upheld & the conviction overturned.

Assuming he's guilty, then he deserves what he's been given. The fact that he's a footballer is, of course, irrelevant.
I hope the person he brutally assaulted has made a full recovery.

Totally agree. One of the strange things about trial by jury is that they can at times make the wrong assessment of the evidence and wrongly convict. Big Dec of course had admitted he was involved but denied the use of an "implement" - presumably if the jury had believed his side of the story then the sentence may not have been as much as 3 years...which when you consider what he has been convicted of is actually quite a light sentence.

He was found guilty by a jury of his peers, he appealled that decision and was released pending a review of his case, now that appeal has been heard and three judges have upheld the original guilty verdict so I am afraid, for me, one has to assume that he is guilty

Of course he was guilty of some involvement, he admitted it, he also expressed remorse at his involvement. He denied using an "implement" during the incident. All this was out in the open before he ever signed for us the first time. It was hoped that character references would mitigate his guilt & that his denial of wielding an "implement" would be believed resulting in a suspended sentence or a heavy fine. Unfortunately it didn't pan out that way. The appeal was lodged on the basis of the judge misdirecting the jury but looks to have been a long shot at best...it appears the jury were not totally convinced of the use of a baseball bat & wanted the phrase "baseball bat or similar implement" removed from the charge & the judge allowed them to delete "baseball bat or similar" - Dec's lawyer thought that was misdirection & that the jury were then unable to deliver the verdict they wanted to deliver. Presumably, he thought the jury didn't think a bat was used but it seems the judge did, they couldn't find him not guilty so any guilty verdict meant he did it using an "implement" & was sentenced accordingly.

However, being found guilty by a jury is not a guarantee of guilt it is simply the verdict the jury arrived at. Juries have been known to be wrong. In this case it wasn't so much a case of determining his guilt but of determining whether or not he used an "implement". There seems to have been some doubt for the jury to seek a change in the charge.

On a side issue, slightly disappointed with the official club statement on this.

So you think our legal system is not open to question? You think every case always results in the correct outcome? Too many wrong convictions have happened over the years. A trial by jury comes down to who the jury believe, which can be decided by which lawyer and set of witnesses is the most convincing... and the thing is people lie with impunity.

I'm not talking about Dec's case here, he admitted he was involved, his guilt was never in question, it was the severity of his involvement that was in doubt. Bad enough that he was involved at all but the only real question was did he use an "implement" which is clearly worse. There seems to have been some doubt in the juries minds based on what I read of the case and the appeal.

If there was sufficient doubt in the Jury's mind then perhaps the verdict would have been one of 'Not Proven', or if there was no doubt at all 'Not Guilty'

Problem with a lot of Defence lawyers is that they view the Appeals Process as an opportunity to make more money by re-selling their services again whilst providing the justification of some perceived miscarriage of justice to deflecr from their losing the original case.

Thing for me is that he was there which means he put himself in that situation and even if he wasn't the one who swung the "implement" then, unlike the victim who lost consciousness, he knows full well who did

Based on the evidence presented at the case he done it that's why a guilty verdict was reached.


 

Thanks for the offer but I'm happy to talk about anything I fancy without anyone telling me what is, and isn't, acceptable to them.
I supported Gallagher when he was released pending his appeal, accepting that due process was being followed and that he was therefore presumed innocent until found guilty. Now that the same due process has been completed and he's been found guilty, then he has to pay for it. The official
website statement is bizarre in the circumstances. A simple comment that, since he has now been convicted according to the law, his employment has been terminated.
His team mates, if they really do read this forum, will understand that being a footballer doesn't exclude them from the legal process.

You are right; the sentence was apparently at the lenient end of the "scale".

I couldn't care a jot that players read the board. We have had someone convicted on a criminal offence playing in our team since last August and that was wrong on all fronts.

the club made a HUGE mistake re-signing Gallacher