The Manchester police can, but won’t. The bastard will get away with it.
What are you talking about Go alien - the police don’t “charge” anyone, the CPS do.
Given the (presumed) current criminal law on point, having seen the tackle on teevee and without knowing if the aggrieved party would make a statement, I’m far from sure a criminal case could be made or - an important consideration for the CPS - whether it’s in the public interest to pursue the matter (potentially wasting taxpayers money on a case that is unlikely to succeed if the evidence/law equation is shaky).
I’m no fan of RK or ManU but I’m also no great lover of misinformation and emotionally-driven hyperbole.
I believe that the police collect evidence and go to the CPS who then decide whether there is enough evidence to charge. The police can invite the person to help with their enquiries or arrest him before the case goes to the CPS. IIRC the police have the power to initiate the case. Consider my comment a short-hand way of describing this process.
IMHO a criminal case could be made. But I don’t know how strong the case would be. Had the incident taken place in a shopping centre betwen two unknowns and been recorded on CCTV or witnessed by a policeman, I’m sure something more would be done than nothing, which appears to be the course of action here.
Here’s an interesting page on the law of negligence regarding football tackles:
It refers to criminal prosecutions very briefly, making the point that these are rare in terms of sports injuries because of the requirement to show intent (not only to do the act, but also to cause injury to the victim). Obviously this is the point at issue in the Keane/Haaland foul.
You can go to jail for quite a long time for committing actual bodily harm, but you need to have intended to cause a pretty high level of harm at the same time. If Keane’s going around saying “I thought it was high time I broke Haaland’s leg” or something like that, then there might be enough for a worthwhile criminal prosecution. If it’s only going to be provable that he intended to foul Haaland, rather than harm him per se, then the charge would be a lesser one, and the CPS may well see it as not worth pursuing.
All the news sites are still banging on about Keane’s foul ending Haaland’s career, but if that’s not the case (as per posts here) then Haaland would have a pretty hard time suing for any kind of damages.
Embra
From Embra’s cite:
Any case would appear to hinge on whether it can be demonstrated that Keane knew “that the type of tackle he was making carried with it a significant risk of serious injury.”
Define “should have known”, define “type”, define the threshold of “significant” in the relevant circumstances and prove it. Then prove no later action (injury) intervened (with medical evidence). And then…and then…and then… Law isn’t easy, 'cept for the layman.
London_Calling, are you, perchance, a lawyer?
Not wishing to sound trite but isn’t it normally the case that the evidence is presented to twelve layman who then decide on the guilt or innocence of the accused?
Also, the cite used the phrase “significant risk of serious injury”, so an actual injury does not have to be proven.
Anyway, this is pretty trivial nitpicking by both of us. I, in my ignorance of the relevant law, think there is a case to answer, you think not. I don’t think the case will come to court, not for lack of evidence, but for lack of bottle.
Not usually on an ‘Assault’ charge, although, if memory serves, the defendant can elect to be tried by jury. It’s more often a matter for the Mags.
If it were to go to a jury, those 12 laypeople decide guilt or otherwise based on the evidence – that evidence is measured according to the relevant rules of law: Has each element in the offence been proven beyond all reasonable doubt ? Not a question of “Here’s the story, you decide”
Thus, each of those questions I posed in my previous post – plus several others – need to proven to the criminal standard (beyond reasonable doubt) and to the jury’s satisfaction before they’ll say “Guilty”.
It seems you’re passing judgement without even knowing the questions that need to be satisfied.
The Rule of Law is “nitpicking” ? I think I’ll leave it there.
The Rule of Law is not nitpicking. Our debate over the details of this particular case is.
I can’t answer the questions you posed. What I’m curious about is whether they are being asked at all by the Manchester police/CPS.
And as for the “Here’s the story, you decide” isn’t that exactly what a trial by jury is? The “story” is the evidence presented in the court by both sides, then the jury decides.
There is actually a lot of precedent (and I’m not being legalistic here).
Jack Charlton admitted he had a book of players he intended to hurt. (Dirty Leeds again)
Bosnich damn near killed Klinsmann in a manner that was certainly reckless.
Schumacher’s tackle on batiston. (ouch)
Paul elliot sued Dean Saunders for a tackle that clearly was deliberate and DID end his career. He lost.
In all cases no action beyond civil action was taken.
However didn’t Duncan Ferguson end up in Barlinie for something on the field (very vague memory and google has failed me)
I remember the Bosnich incident. Same night that Cantona was demonstrating his drop-kick. Had not Cantona stolen the headlines, Bosnich would have undergone the same vilification.
Duncan Ferguson’s jail spell was for headbutting a police officer at a taxi rank (or was it a taxi driver? I forget).
Actually, the Ferguson, Cantona and Keane cases form a neat triptych.
Ferguson deliberately and with intent to harm headbuts someone on the street with no connection to football and goes to jail.
Cantona deliberately and with intent to harm kicks a non-footballer at a football match and does community service.
Keane deliberately and with intent to harm kicks a footballer on the pitch and gets a four match ban.
owlstretchingtime, you’re right. Ferguson got 3 months at the Bar-L for a headbutt on Raith’s John McStay: Football’s hall of shame
A s.47 ABH assault is an “either-way” offence which the defendant can elect to have heard before a jury, for those interested 
Embra
Ah. I stand corrected; the incident I was thinking of wasn’t the same one.
Dennis Wise got 3 months for punching a taxi driver in 1995 but he was acquitted on appeal. Maybe that’s the one?
No, it was definitely Ferguson. When I was living in Edinburgh a mate of mine’s brother was a policeman who was called to an altercation involving him. Maybe it wasn’t as serious and never resulted in a court appearance. Oh well.