Cawley got four months after pleaawwley shoulkd have got ding guilty this morning in magistrates court
This sentence is far too lenient. He'll be out in 2 months and will be a hero in the eyes of thousands of Leeds' 'fans', probably some will try to out-do him. The sentence should have been a message sending one. If you invade private premises and assault someone inside those premises, that is burglary, allied to common assault and actual bodily harm, and for being a completely arrogant no good c88t .. Cawley should have got 30 months in a high security prison
I bet the judge would have loved to give him more but can only give him the range from his guidelines. I think by him pleading guilty would mean the judge already has to take 1/3 off the starting point.
That's the thing .. the case didn't get to the Crown Court where harsher penalties are available. The CPS have taken the easy way out as usual. He should have been committed to C Court and remanded in custody
The max sentence for assault is 6 months which is he highest sentence the magistrate can give out, it would not be worth them sending it to the crown. You good argue the law is to soft but that's a different topic.
That is my point, the charge could and should have been burglary .. maximum 14 years .. read the theft act 1968 .. cawley is guilty of burglary
I can see where you are coming from but it opens a can of worms in my opinion. Would that mean that the fans that run on a Carlisle have committed burglary and should be sentenced as such? I think we are on the same wave length in regards to maybe he got of light.
Cawley got four months after pleaawwley shoulkd have got ding guilty this morning in magistrates court
This sentence is far too lenient. He'll be out in 2 months and will be a hero in the eyes of thousands of Leeds' 'fans', probably some will try to out-do him. The sentence should have been a message sending one. If you invade private premises and assault someone inside those premises, that is burglary, allied to common assault and actual bodily harm, and for being a completely arrogant no good c88t .. Cawley should have got 30 months in a high security prison
I bet the judge would have loved to give him more but can only give him the range from his guidelines. I think by him pleading guilty would mean the judge already has to take 1/3 off the starting point.
That's the thing .. the case didn't get to the Crown Court where harsher penalties are available. The CPS have taken the easy way out as usual. He should have been committed to C Court and remanded in custody
The max sentence for assault is 6 months which is he highest sentence the magistrate can give out, it would not be worth them sending it to the crown. You good argue the law is to soft but that's a different topic.
That is my point, the charge could and should have been burglary .. maximum 14 years .. read the theft act 1968 .. cawley is guilty of burglary
I can see where you are coming from but it opens a can of worms in my opinion. Would that mean that the fans that run on a Carlisle have committed burglary and should be sentenced as such? I think we are on the same wave length in regards to maybe he got of light.
The fans at C'lisle are NOT guilty .. there is NO intent to commit GBH, rape, or theft .. I would hope anyway !! .. I was wrong about the max .. it is only 10 years, 14 applies in the case of breaking into a 'dwelling'
READ THE STATUTE.. Before you start with the jokes !!
Maybe you should mate.
14 years is for entering a dwelling, I don't think Hilsborough is a "dwelling".
Nice try though.
see above
I don't think the pitch is a building or a part of a building.
I don't think there's a court in the land that would accept that someone running on the pitch is a burglar - I'm sure there must be many people have been prosecuted for running on the pitch so I assume your theory is based an case law precedent rather than just completely made up, could you point my to the case in which it was established that invading a football pitch constituted burglary ?
READ THE STATUTE.. Before you start with the jokes !!
Maybe you should mate.
14 years is for entering a dwelling, I don't think Hilsborough is a "dwelling".
Nice try though.
see above
I don't think the pitch is a building or a part of a building.
I don't think there's a court in the land that would accept that someone running on the pitch is a burglar - I'm sure there must be many people have been prosecuted for running on the pitch so I assume your theory is based an case law precedent rather than just completely made up, could you point my to the case in which it was established that invading a football pitch constituted burglary ?
building or anything therein.
I take it you're incapable of understanding plain English.
The offence of burglary is created by section 9 of the Theft Act 1968 which now reads:
(1) A person is guilty of burglary if— (a) he enters any building or part of a building as a trespasser and with intent to commit any such offence as is mentioned in subsection (2) below; or (b) having entered any building or part of a building as a trespasser he steals or attempts to steal anything in the building or that part of it or inflicts or attempts to inflict on any person therein any grievous bodily harm. (2) The offences referred to in subsection (1)(a) above are offences of stealing anything in the building or part of a building in question, of inflicting on any person therein any grievous bodily harm ... therein, and of doing unlawful damage to the building or anything therein.
'If a person enters a building or part of a building with the intent to commit gbh .. etc .. Hillsborough Stadium is a building, the pitch is part of the building .. Cawley had the intent to assault Kirkland as he made straight for him, he was a trespasser as he was not invited onto the pitch .. case law ? none so far as I know .. that is what cases are for, to set precedent, precedent has to start somewhere ... you don't think any court would accept that Cawley is a burglar ?.. IF I were a prosecutor, I'd charge him with Burglary .. win lose or draw it'd put the fear of God into him. and the right judge and jury, on the right day could well agree with me.
READ THE STATUTE.. Before you start with the jokes !!
Maybe you should mate.
14 years is for entering a dwelling, I don't think Hilsborough is a "dwelling".
Nice try though.
see above
I don't think the pitch is a building or a part of a building.
I don't think there's a court in the land that would accept that someone running on the pitch is a burglar - I'm sure there must be many people have been prosecuted for running on the pitch so I assume your theory is based an case law precedent rather than just completely made up, could you point my to the case in which it was established that invading a football pitch constituted burglary ?
building or anything therein.
I take it you're incapable of understanding plain English.
The offence of burglary is created by section 9 of the Theft Act 1968 which now reads:
(1) A person is guilty of burglary if— (a) he enters any building or part of a building as a trespasser and with intent to commit any such offence as is mentioned in subsection (2) below; or (b) having entered any building or part of a building as a trespasser he steals or attempts to steal anything in the building or that part of it or inflicts or attempts to inflict on any person therein any grievous bodily harm. (2) The offences referred to in subsection (1)(a) above are offences of stealing anything in the building or part of a building in question, of inflicting on any person therein any grievous bodily harm ... therein, and of doing unlawful damage to the building or anything therein.
'If a person enters a building or part of a building with the intent to commit gbh .. etc .. Hillsborough Stadium is a building, the pitch is part of the building .. Cawley had the intent to assault Kirkland as he made straight for him, he was a trespasser as he was not invited onto the pitch .. case law ? none so far as I know .. that is what cases are for, to set precedent, precedent has to start somewhere ... you don't think any court would accept that Cawley is a burglar ?.. IF I were a prosecutor, I'd charge him with Burglary .. win lose or draw it'd put the fear of God into him. and the right judge and jury, on the right day could well agree with me.
I don't think the law is designed to "put the fear of God" into people, it's designed to act in a just manner and punish people appropriately according to the severity of their crime.
Although clearly you know better than the combined history of English law, stretching back over a thousand years which shows literally never has someone who invaded a field of been charged with Burglary.
READ THE STATUTE.. Before you start with the jokes !!
Maybe you should mate.
14 years is for entering a dwelling, I don't think Hilsborough is a "dwelling".
Nice try though.
see above
I don't think the pitch is a building or a part of a building.
I don't think there's a court in the land that would accept that someone running on the pitch is a burglar - I'm sure there must be many people have been prosecuted for running on the pitch so I assume your theory is based an case law precedent rather than just completely made up, could you point my to the case in which it was established that invading a football pitch constituted burglary ?
building or anything therein.
I take it you're incapable of understanding plain English.
The offence of burglary is created by section 9 of the Theft Act 1968 which now reads:
(1) A person is guilty of burglary if— (a) he enters any building or part of a building as a trespasser and with intent to commit any such offence as is mentioned in subsection (2) below; or (b) having entered any building or part of a building as a trespasser he steals or attempts to steal anything in the building or that part of it or inflicts or attempts to inflict on any person therein any grievous bodily harm. (2) The offences referred to in subsection (1)(a) above are offences of stealing anything in the building or part of a building in question, of inflicting on any person therein any grievous bodily harm ... therein, and of doing unlawful damage to the building or anything therein.
'If a person enters a building or part of a building with the intent to commit gbh .. etc .. Hillsborough Stadium is a building, the pitch is part of the building .. Cawley had the intent to assault Kirkland as he made straight for him, he was a trespasser as he was not invited onto the pitch .. case law ? none so far as I know .. that is what cases are for, to set precedent, precedent has to start somewhere ... you don't think any court would accept that Cawley is a burglar ?.. IF I were a prosecutor, I'd charge him with Burglary .. win lose or draw it'd put the fear of God into him. and the right judge and jury, on the right day could well agree with me.
I don't think the law is designed to "put the fear of God" into people, it's designed to act in a just manner and punish people appropriately according to the severity of their crime.
Although clearly you know better than the combined history of English law, stretching back over a thousand years which shows literally never has someone who invaded a field of been charged with Burglary.
the last resort of a feeble minded twit who has not the wit nor intelligence to argue a case and not the grace to admit that he could be wrong... Sarcasm..... And the Theft Act is not 100000s of years old 'mate', it became law in 1968 .. have a nice day
READ THE STATUTE.. Before you start with the jokes !!
Maybe you should mate.
14 years is for entering a dwelling, I don't think Hilsborough is a "dwelling".
Nice try though.
see above
I don't think the pitch is a building or a part of a building.
I don't think there's a court in the land that would accept that someone running on the pitch is a burglar - I'm sure there must be many people have been prosecuted for running on the pitch so I assume your theory is based an case law precedent rather than just completely made up, could you point my to the case in which it was established that invading a football pitch constituted burglary ?
building or anything therein.
I take it you're incapable of understanding plain English.
The offence of burglary is created by section 9 of the Theft Act 1968 which now reads:
(1) A person is guilty of burglary if— (a) he enters any building or part of a building as a trespasser and with intent to commit any such offence as is mentioned in subsection (2) below; or (b) having entered any building or part of a building as a trespasser he steals or attempts to steal anything in the building or that part of it or inflicts or attempts to inflict on any person therein any grievous bodily harm. (2) The offences referred to in subsection (1)(a) above are offences of stealing anything in the building or part of a building in question, of inflicting on any person therein any grievous bodily harm ... therein, and of doing unlawful damage to the building or anything therein.
'If a person enters a building or part of a building with the intent to commit gbh .. etc .. Hillsborough Stadium is a building, the pitch is part of the building .. Cawley had the intent to assault Kirkland as he made straight for him, he was a trespasser as he was not invited onto the pitch .. case law ? none so far as I know .. that is what cases are for, to set precedent, precedent has to start somewhere ... you don't think any court would accept that Cawley is a burglar ?.. IF I were a prosecutor, I'd charge him with Burglary .. win lose or draw it'd put the fear of God into him. and the right judge and jury, on the right day could well agree with me.
I don't think the law is designed to "put the fear of God" into people, it's designed to act in a just manner and punish people appropriately according to the severity of their crime.
Although clearly you know better than the combined history of English law, stretching back over a thousand years which shows literally never has someone who invaded a field of been charged with Burglary.
the last resort of a feeble minded twit who has not the wit nor intelligence to argue a case and not the grace to admit that he could be wrong... Sarcasm..... And the Theft Act is not 100000s of years old 'mate', it became law in 1968 .. have a nice day
I don't think you ever had a fully functioning one .. snnnnniiipppperrrrr .. think of something constructive to post .. idiots and cowards resort to taking the piss
READ THE STATUTE.. Before you start with the jokes !!
Maybe you should mate.
14 years is for entering a dwelling, I don't think Hilsborough is a "dwelling".
Nice try though.
see above
I don't think the pitch is a building or a part of a building.
I don't think there's a court in the land that would accept that someone running on the pitch is a burglar - I'm sure there must be many people have been prosecuted for running on the pitch so I assume your theory is based an case law precedent rather than just completely made up, could you point my to the case in which it was established that invading a football pitch constituted burglary ?
building or anything therein.
I take it you're incapable of understanding plain English.
The offence of burglary is created by section 9 of the Theft Act 1968 which now reads:
(1) A person is guilty of burglary if— (a) he enters any building or part of a building as a trespasser and with intent to commit any such offence as is mentioned in subsection (2) below; or (b) having entered any building or part of a building as a trespasser he steals or attempts to steal anything in the building or that part of it or inflicts or attempts to inflict on any person therein any grievous bodily harm. (2) The offences referred to in subsection (1)(a) above are offences of stealing anything in the building or part of a building in question, of inflicting on any person therein any grievous bodily harm ... therein, and of doing unlawful damage to the building or anything therein.
'If a person enters a building or part of a building with the intent to commit gbh .. etc .. Hillsborough Stadium is a building, the pitch is part of the building .. Cawley had the intent to assault Kirkland as he made straight for him, he was a trespasser as he was not invited onto the pitch .. case law ? none so far as I know .. that is what cases are for, to set precedent, precedent has to start somewhere ... you don't think any court would accept that Cawley is a burglar ?.. IF I were a prosecutor, I'd charge him with Burglary .. win lose or draw it'd put the fear of God into him. and the right judge and jury, on the right day could well agree with me.
I don't think the law is designed to "put the fear of God" into people, it's designed to act in a just manner and punish people appropriately according to the severity of their crime.
Although clearly you know better than the combined history of English law, stretching back over a thousand years which shows literally never has someone who invaded a field of been charged with Burglary.
the last resort of a feeble minded twit who has not the wit nor intelligence to argue a case and not the grace to admit that he could be wrong... Sarcasm..... And the Theft Act is not 100000s of years old 'mate', it became law in 1968 .. have a nice day
READ THE STATUTE.. Before you start with the jokes !!
Maybe you should mate.
14 years is for entering a dwelling, I don't think Hilsborough is a "dwelling".
Nice try though.
see above
I don't think the pitch is a building or a part of a building.
I don't think there's a court in the land that would accept that someone running on the pitch is a burglar - I'm sure there must be many people have been prosecuted for running on the pitch so I assume your theory is based an case law precedent rather than just completely made up, could you point my to the case in which it was established that invading a football pitch constituted burglary ?
building or anything therein.
I take it you're incapable of understanding plain English.
The offence of burglary is created by section 9 of the Theft Act 1968 which now reads:
(1) A person is guilty of burglary if— (a) he enters any building or part of a building as a trespasser and with intent to commit any such offence as is mentioned in subsection (2) below; or (b) having entered any building or part of a building as a trespasser he steals or attempts to steal anything in the building or that part of it or inflicts or attempts to inflict on any person therein any grievous bodily harm. (2) The offences referred to in subsection (1)(a) above are offences of stealing anything in the building or part of a building in question, of inflicting on any person therein any grievous bodily harm ... therein, and of doing unlawful damage to the building or anything therein.
'If a person enters a building or part of a building with the intent to commit gbh .. etc .. Hillsborough Stadium is a building, the pitch is part of the building .. Cawley had the intent to assault Kirkland as he made straight for him, he was a trespasser as he was not invited onto the pitch .. case law ? none so far as I know .. that is what cases are for, to set precedent, precedent has to start somewhere ... you don't think any court would accept that Cawley is a burglar ?.. IF I were a prosecutor, I'd charge him with Burglary .. win lose or draw it'd put the fear of God into him. and the right judge and jury, on the right day could well agree with me.
I don't think the law is designed to "put the fear of God" into people, it's designed to act in a just manner and punish people appropriately according to the severity of their crime.
Although clearly you know better than the combined history of English law, stretching back over a thousand years which shows literally never has someone who invaded a field of been charged with Burglary.
the last resort of a feeble minded twit who has not the wit nor intelligence to argue a case and not the grace to admit that he could be wrong... Sarcasm..... And the Theft Act is not 100000s of years old 'mate', it became law in 1968 .. have a nice day
READ THE STATUTE.. Before you start with the jokes !!
Maybe you should mate.
14 years is for entering a dwelling, I don't think Hilsborough is a "dwelling".
Nice try though.
see above
I don't think the pitch is a building or a part of a building.
I don't think there's a court in the land that would accept that someone running on the pitch is a burglar - I'm sure there must be many people have been prosecuted for running on the pitch so I assume your theory is based an case law precedent rather than just completely made up, could you point my to the case in which it was established that invading a football pitch constituted burglary ?
building or anything therein.
I take it you're incapable of understanding plain English.
The offence of burglary is created by section 9 of the Theft Act 1968 which now reads:
(1) A person is guilty of burglary if— (a) he enters any building or part of a building as a trespasser and with intent to commit any such offence as is mentioned in subsection (2) below; or (b) having entered any building or part of a building as a trespasser he steals or attempts to steal anything in the building or that part of it or inflicts or attempts to inflict on any person therein any grievous bodily harm. (2) The offences referred to in subsection (1)(a) above are offences of stealing anything in the building or part of a building in question, of inflicting on any person therein any grievous bodily harm ... therein, and of doing unlawful damage to the building or anything therein.
'If a person enters a building or part of a building with the intent to commit gbh .. etc .. Hillsborough Stadium is a building, the pitch is part of the building .. Cawley had the intent to assault Kirkland as he made straight for him, he was a trespasser as he was not invited onto the pitch .. case law ? none so far as I know .. that is what cases are for, to set precedent, precedent has to start somewhere ... you don't think any court would accept that Cawley is a burglar ?.. IF I were a prosecutor, I'd charge him with Burglary .. win lose or draw it'd put the fear of God into him. and the right judge and jury, on the right day could well agree with me.
I don't think the law is designed to "put the fear of God" into people, it's designed to act in a just manner and punish people appropriately according to the severity of their crime.
Although clearly you know better than the combined history of English law, stretching back over a thousand years which shows literally never has someone who invaded a field of been charged with Burglary.
the last resort of a feeble minded twit who has not the wit nor intelligence to argue a case and not the grace to admit that he could be wrong... Sarcasm..... And the Theft Act is not 100000s of years old 'mate', it became law in 1968 .. have a nice day
Burglary didn't exist as a crime prior to 1968 ?
Nope - it used to be called larceny ;-)
Sounds way cooler tbf
There used to be Grand Larceny as well..for crimes over a thousand pounds.
Have just read this thread and the only one calling people names is you (twits, cowards, idiots, etc). You have an interesting point - in theory - but you don't do yourself any favours by name-calling those who don't agree with you.
And I'm not having a dig by the way. Just my view.
READ THE STATUTE.. Before you start with the jokes !!
Maybe you should mate.
14 years is for entering a dwelling, I don't think Hilsborough is a "dwelling".
Nice try though.
see above
I don't think the pitch is a building or a part of a building.
I don't think there's a court in the land that would accept that someone running on the pitch is a burglar - I'm sure there must be many people have been prosecuted for running on the pitch so I assume your theory is based an case law precedent rather than just completely made up, could you point my to the case in which it was established that invading a football pitch constituted burglary ?
building or anything therein.
I take it you're incapable of understanding plain English.
The offence of burglary is created by section 9 of the Theft Act 1968 which now reads:
(1) A person is guilty of burglary if— (a) he enters any building or part of a building as a trespasser and with intent to commit any such offence as is mentioned in subsection (2) below; or (b) having entered any building or part of a building as a trespasser he steals or attempts to steal anything in the building or that part of it or inflicts or attempts to inflict on any person therein any grievous bodily harm. (2) The offences referred to in subsection (1)(a) above are offences of stealing anything in the building or part of a building in question, of inflicting on any person therein any grievous bodily harm ... therein, and of doing unlawful damage to the building or anything therein.
'If a person enters a building or part of a building with the intent to commit gbh .. etc .. Hillsborough Stadium is a building, the pitch is part of the building .. Cawley had the intent to assault Kirkland as he made straight for him, he was a trespasser as he was not invited onto the pitch .. case law ? none so far as I know .. that is what cases are for, to set precedent, precedent has to start somewhere ... you don't think any court would accept that Cawley is a burglar ?.. IF I were a prosecutor, I'd charge him with Burglary .. win lose or draw it'd put the fear of God into him. and the right judge and jury, on the right day could well agree with me.
I may be wrong but aren't you charged with GBH if you use a weapon.
Have just read this thread and the only one calling people names is you (twits, cowards, idiots, etc). You have an interesting point - in theory - but you don't do yourself any favours by name-calling those who don't agree with you.
And I'm not having a dig by the way. Just my view.
thanks for the uncalled for advice (:->) .. I am not too popular on here as you know .. some people who think they're clever and funny will just have a pop at anything I post and I suspect this is usually without reading what I've written or a question of not understanding my point .. this is COWARDLY bullying and sniping & getting A CHEAP laugh at my expense. OK, but I have a right to retaliate .. and if you read this post through you will see that rather than admit that perhaps I have made a point .. it is a case of me knowing nothing, better than thousands of years of history prove I am wrong .. without stating an alternative idea. This to me is STUPID. I'm sorry offy ... I know that you mean well but only an IDIOT resorts to sarcasm and stating untruths or twisting what I have posted instead of arguing the point. When I am wrong I fess up. Many of the childten on here don't have the bottle to admit when they are wrong. I'm not angry, I don't want a hug, if you diasgree with me say why, if you don't understand what I am on about say so, but stop sniping, it's COWARDLY and NASTY. I don't do it and I expect the same courteousy from others. But after all this is a football discussion site, not University Challenge, WHAT do I expect. I am saying NO MORE about this
READ THE STATUTE.. Before you start with the jokes !!
Maybe you should mate.
14 years is for entering a dwelling, I don't think Hilsborough is a "dwelling".
Nice try though.
see above
I don't think the pitch is a building or a part of a building.
I don't think there's a court in the land that would accept that someone running on the pitch is a burglar - I'm sure there must be many people have been prosecuted for running on the pitch so I assume your theory is based an case law precedent rather than just completely made up, could you point my to the case in which it was established that invading a football pitch constituted burglary ?
building or anything therein.
I take it you're incapable of understanding plain English.
The offence of burglary is created by section 9 of the Theft Act 1968 which now reads:
(1) A person is guilty of burglary if— (a) he enters any building or part of a building as a trespasser and with intent to commit any such offence as is mentioned in subsection (2) below; or (b) having entered any building or part of a building as a trespasser he steals or attempts to steal anything in the building or that part of it or inflicts or attempts to inflict on any person therein any grievous bodily harm. (2) The offences referred to in subsection (1)(a) above are offences of stealing anything in the building or part of a building in question, of inflicting on any person therein any grievous bodily harm ... therein, and of doing unlawful damage to the building or anything therein.
'If a person enters a building or part of a building with the intent to commit gbh .. etc .. Hillsborough Stadium is a building, the pitch is part of the building .. Cawley had the intent to assault Kirkland as he made straight for him, he was a trespasser as he was not invited onto the pitch .. case law ? none so far as I know .. that is what cases are for, to set precedent, precedent has to start somewhere ... you don't think any court would accept that Cawley is a burglar ?.. IF I were a prosecutor, I'd charge him with Burglary .. win lose or draw it'd put the fear of God into him. and the right judge and jury, on the right day could well agree with me.
I may be wrong but aren't you charged with GBH if you use a weapon.
If not isn't the charge ABH.
The distinguishing factors are the intent and the level of harm though the use of weapons is one of several aggravating features. Few people know that there are actually 3 offences for the 2 offences of gbh and abh that are in common dialogue.
Leave off Lincs, it was a joke as are most of my posts. If you took it personally then I apologise but you're the only one doing any name calling and you do seem to post some strange things.
I still don't understand how he could be nicked for burglary but I'm not that bothered to be fair.
Have just read this thread and the only one calling people names is you (twits, cowards, idiots, etc). You have an interesting point - in theory - but you don't do yourself any favours by name-calling those who don't agree with you.
And I'm not having a dig by the way. Just my view.
thanks for the uncalled for advice (:->) .. I am not too popular on here as you know .. some people who think they're clever and funny will just have a pop at anything I post and I suspect this is usually without reading what I've written or a question of not understanding my point .. this is COWARDLY bullying and sniping & getting A CHEAP laugh at my expense. OK, but I have a right to retaliate .. and if you read this post through you will see that rather than admit that perhaps I have made a point .. it is a case of me knowing nothing, better than thousands of years of history prove I am wrong .. without stating an alternative idea. This to me is STUPID. I'm sorry offy ... I know that you mean well but only an IDIOT resorts to sarcasm and stating untruths or twisting what I have posted instead of arguing the point. When I am wrong I fess up. Many of the childten on here don't have the bottle to admit when they are wrong. I'm not angry, I don't want a hug, if you diasgree with me say why, if you don't understand what I am on about say so, but stop sniping, it's COWARDLY and NASTY. I don't do it and I expect the same courteousy from others. But after all this is a football discussion site, not University Challenge, WHAT do I expect. I am saying NO MORE about this
Sorry, wasn't my intention to come across as bullying, I just don't agree with your judgement that a man attacking someone on a football pitch is guilty of burglary. Again apologies if I came across as making fun of your theory.
The bloke reckons he done up to ten pints of cider and three quarters of a bottle of Vodka before the game, I smell some serious bullish@t coming from his mouth. Dirty SCUM
Comments
14 years is for entering a dwelling, I don't think Hilsborough is a "dwelling".
Nice try though.
I don't think there's a court in the land that would accept that someone running on the pitch is a burglar - I'm sure there must be many people have been prosecuted for running on the pitch so I assume your theory is based an case law precedent rather than just completely made up, could you point my to the case in which it was established that invading a football pitch constituted burglary ?
I take it you're incapable of understanding plain English.
The offence of burglary is created by section 9 of the Theft Act 1968 which now reads:
(1) A person is guilty of burglary if—
(a) he enters any building or part of a building as a trespasser and with intent to commit any such offence as is mentioned in subsection (2) below; or
(b) having entered any building or part of a building as a trespasser he steals or attempts to steal anything in the building or that part of it or inflicts or attempts to inflict on any person therein any grievous bodily harm.
(2) The offences referred to in subsection (1)(a) above are offences of stealing anything in the building or part of a building in question, of inflicting on any person therein any grievous bodily harm ... therein, and of doing unlawful damage to the building or anything therein.
'If a person enters a building or part of a building with the intent to commit gbh .. etc .. Hillsborough Stadium is a building, the pitch is part of the building .. Cawley had the intent to assault Kirkland as he made straight for him, he was a trespasser as he was not invited onto the pitch .. case law ? none so far as I know .. that is what cases are for, to set precedent, precedent has to start somewhere ... you don't think any court would accept that Cawley is a burglar ?.. IF I were a prosecutor, I'd charge him with Burglary .. win lose or draw it'd put the fear of God into him. and the right judge and jury, on the right day could well agree with me.
Although clearly you know better than the combined history of English law, stretching back over a thousand years which shows literally never has someone who invaded a field of been charged with Burglary.
the last resort of a feeble minded twit who has not the wit nor intelligence to argue a case and not the grace to admit that he could be wrong... Sarcasm..... And the Theft Act is not 100000s of years old 'mate', it became law in 1968 .. have a nice day
Have just read this thread and the only one calling people names is you (twits, cowards, idiots, etc). You have an interesting point - in theory - but you don't do yourself any favours by name-calling those who don't agree with you.
And I'm not having a dig by the way. Just my view.
If not isn't the charge ABH.
I am saying NO MORE about this
I still don't understand how he could be nicked for burglary but I'm not that bothered to be fair.
Once again apologies if you took offence.
Dirty SCUM