Steven Gerrard found not guilty of Affray

[Bjohn]

I've got a bit of a question here. Alas time has passed I'm still wondering why Steven Gerrard was not found guilty of a crime? OK they may of not been able to prove that someone of reasonable firmness was in fear - Affray - but he did strike they guy. OK there is the argument of self defence.

Why did they drop the charge of Assault and go for the Affray. Would it have been in the interest of the prosecution to lower the charge to a lesser public order charge.

I'm a little confused about the whole situation.

BTW (big Stevie G fan, no football loyalties here - just wondering from a purely legal point of view)

[Androcles]

On the dropping of the charge it was a CPS decision see

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/footbal l/premier_league/liverpool/article5943635.ece

On the question of why he was found not guilty of Affray, you will have to ask the Jury as it was they who decided and they are not allowed to discuss the deliberations!

[Bjohn]

Interesting decision from the CPS - After watching the video I would have thought it harder to prove affray than assault.

[fredpuli47]

Yes, bjohn, the mind of the CPS works in mysterious ways. My guess is that they were interested in the words 'their conduct taken together' [s3(1) of the Public Order Act 1986]. They felt they had other, more general, evidence of affray and that the action caught on tape, which got all the publicity, was only part of the picture, which was that he was part of a common activity or enterprise amounting to affray.They might then squeak home even if he got a defence to assault in the particular instance up and running. They must have been disappointed when the others pleaded guilty because that may well have left a lot of evidence out (including any which the defendants might give in their own defence, which is rarely helpful to any of them), but, in any case, focussed the jury's mind on the one bit. !