there can be a retrial only if new and compelling evidence is subsequently found, but given that the man was acquited by virtue of the fact that he didnt intend to kill the other, and supposedly acted in self defence, this seems highly unlikely. Unless ofcourse he later admits he was at fault....yeah right.

whilst not condoning anything here, what always strikes me in these cases or even in our sport, it's fair to say Punches are thrown with no intent to kill or seriously injur, they are generally heat of the moment, the connection and allsorts of variables thereafter dictate whether you are judged as 'able to look after yourself a bit' - ' a nutter' or 'lucky to get away with not being sent down'



snidey blindside wallops to the jaw when playing are not included in the above generalisation.

When you type a certain players name into Google and search on images, you'd be surprised how many pictures of him with Stuart Reardon there are.....

Its my understanding that West Yorkshire Police didn't even present any witnesses at the trial as they felt multiple angles from cctv footage from around the area would be sufficient to gain a conviction. There was witnesses available for the prosecution to use. Could these reasons be used for a re-trial?

Is incompetence by the prosecution usually a reason for a re-trial?



Got to admit I'm struggling a bit with this one. My understanding of "self defence" was that there was no other option available - ie. if you can walk away then you can't claim it was a last resort. I'd hate to think that everyone I've ever sworn at had the legal right to then beat me to death in self defence.

Following on from flippers gist let me ask the posters baying for the acquitted man's blood on here whether they want Keith Senior charged for what appears to be a carbon copy of the incident in the match against Saints at Headingley in 2009 when he floored Wilkin with one punch?



I do not make judgments on these things from quotes given by journalists working for the sun. They are no more or less reliable than many posters on here and that is no commendation.



The Judge and the jurors heard all the evidence, saw the faces of the witnesses, listened to the cross examination, were guided on the law by the judge and reached their decision. Why does any ill informed person on here with a poor grasp of the facts based upon reporters versions of events really think they're in a better position to judge than those jurors?

What if he crossed the road to reason with the chap (who on the basis of the evidence appears to have pursued the accused aggressively asking for a fight). Having gone across the road to do so it became apparent that he was about to be attacked and punched the gentleman in an act of self defence?



Remember that great video from the other year with the cage fighting cross dressers punching the young bother causing scrotes on the street? We all cheered that. It looked like natural justice. If the young scrote had, however, been killed by or as a result of that punch what would your view be? I remember the footage and the cross dressing cage fighter (love typing that definition) could have walked away from the aggressive little scrote but he turned back and walked towards him. It's just dumb luck that his punch didn't result in a death and the one in the present case did.



I fail to see why everyone is getting their knickers in a twist. Is it a tragic and sad tale, yes? Has justice been served, yes? It's a cautionary tale but I don't see the need to be baying for any more blood.

hmm.. some good points. re: the Keith Senior incident (im trying to justify this in my own mind) on a soft pitch in front of thousands of ppl including security staff and TV cameras and with a punch barely hard enough to put a similar size man down (i believe Wilkin took a bit of a dive) was never ever going to cause serious injury.



Also in terms of information those quotes where by the prosecuter and not the sun (various other sources had these quotes - the sun was just the first one up on google).



On the baying for blood, I know I would be one calling for a sentence - but the bigger picture is that fights like this one occur ever Friday/ Saturday in nearly every town and city centre - the consequences are frightening and almost never thought about at the time. Something needs to be done to stop these incidents occurring (maybe just better education).



Finally has just justice been served? A man has died at the hands of another man (accident or no) - the man whos hands undeniably caused this death has received no punishment for it.

...because its recognised that there are circumstances where such a thing can happen without blame, self defence being one of those circumstances.







If you don't go looking for trouble then you don't often find it.

Slight issue CPS decide on the evidence to be presented witness etc not the police

I'd have thought that the one that floored BJ Mather was a more appropriate comparison. That was a one punch KO of the highest order, an a bloke much bigger than KS. Actually come to think of it, KS has a bit of a history of ting people...

.... and if you dont go round bashing every div who runs his mouth off you wont be in the dock for manslaughter. Sounds like he had a very good barrister in his corner, and it could have gone either way. Did he genuinely think he was going to be attacked and acted in self defence, or did he go to give him a good smack to prove he's a big man.... i guess only he will really know.