A Hearts fan has been cleared of assaulting Celtic manager Neil Lennon after an Edinburgh Sheriff Court jury found the case against him not proven. [name redacted] had denied his actions were aggravated by religious prejudice. He was found guilty of breach of the peace by running onto the pitch at Hearts' ground Tynecastle last May and shouting and swearing at Mr Lennon. [name redacted] will return to Edinburgh Sheriff Court at a later date where he will be sentenced.

Full Story

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-14732110

Find it hard to believe he got a "not proven" when half the world saw the footage ! Was it a case of the authorities once again "over-reaching" in terms of the charge by tagging on the "religious prejudice" aspect and then not being able to prove that (or to agree to remove that additional part of the charge when offered a guilty plea) ... or was it an ill informed jury ???

Reminds me of the time I was on a High Court jury in an attempted murder trial .... the jury felt the prosecution over-reached with the charge and while (I think) we would have been happy to find the accused guilty of assault to severe injury or permanent disfigurement or something like that, we had to come back with a not-proven on the attempted murder as it was clear - even from the victim's testimony - that there was no intent to murder, just a fight that got way out of hand and where the loser was classed as the victim and the 'winner' ended up as the accused ... as sometimes happens ... the Police/PF had gone for the severest charge they could and left no room to consider a slightly lesser charge.

Not much point in video replays for debatable decisions on the pitch when the courts can't see what happened.

Maybe the jury consisted of 12 referees.

The right decision was returned under the circumstances and only serves to underline the point I was making at the time about it being far too easy to try and pigeon hole everything as being driven by sectarianism. It actually restores a little of my lost faith in the legal system that they just didn't take it as read that such a motive existed.

Agreed, they were far too quick to add in the sectarian charge which is why he walked. Lennon didn't hear any sectarian remark so how could it be, when it would have been directed at him?

The said Hearts fan, has been proved that after all the qaffuffel, that he just hated Neil Lennon, and not his religion. As I said at the time, the majority of people would hate him because of the way he was going about things, nothing to do with his religion. His complaining was doing as much damage to the reputation of Scottish football, if not more, than this idiot did. However, to only get done for breach of the peace is a joke, and now includes the courts and Scottish legal system into the catagory of damaged reputation.

I dare say religious bigotry and sectarianism is difficult to prove unless you have shouted said abuse at the time of the attack, or have feck the ........ tattooed all over your forehead.

Hope they can still jail the idiot,

The jury accepted breach of the peace but rejected sectarianism, so how they couldn't do the same thing with the assault is beyond me. I've never agreed with the Celtic paranoia - even during the lying referee stage (he gave the initial decision against Dundee Utd, then got the decision right but told a white lie to his supervisor, not Celtic, over why he changed his mind) - but maybe they have a point here. Makes Scotland a laughing stock.

The right decision was returned under the circumstances and only serves to underline the point I was making at the time about it being far too easy to try and pigeon hole everything as being driven by sectarianism. It actually restores a little of my lost faith in the legal system that they just didn't take it as read that such a motive existed.

I agree. When all the huffing and puffing was going on in the summer to push through problably ill thought out legislation too quickly I was worried that everyone was going to get tarred with the same brush. It was probably simple assault tho imo.

Hope they can still jail the idiot,

He was jailed, for 110 days, I know many people with a string of assault charges on their records who have not done a day jail time, John Wilson was not convicted of assault. This case has been blown out of proportion due to the media coverage of it.

Edited September 1, 201114 yr by marks

Fair play, didnt hear he still got the clink on the radio, probably because they concentrated on the not proven guilty part. That said, it was clear what his intention was, and who his target was. It could be argued if it was sectarian, why didnt he attack the first Celtic person on the bench

Fair play, didnt hear he still got the clink on the radio, probably because they concentrated on the not proven guilty part. That said, it was clear what his intention was, and who his target was. It could be argued if it was sectarian, why didnt he attack the first Celtic person on the bench

He spent over 100 days on remand, he was not jailed yesterday. The sectarian element was argued and was not proven to have existed, the jury also had the option of removing the sectarian part of the charges to secure an assault conviction. I find it hard to believe that someone who admits having not listened to a 3 minute radio report properly can come out and say they still hope there is scope for someone to be jailed even after a jury, a Sheriff and two legal teams have considered all the facts over a period of four days. No wonder there are so many ill informed opinions on Scottish football web forums.

Not really wanting to get into all this again, but the Hearts security official, a former police officer, testified that he heard the assailant call Lennon a "Fenian b**tard."

Not sure of that is sectarian enough for the jury or indeed for some on here, but as Scotty says, seen from the outside, the whole episode must paint Scotland in a very poor light.

Fair play, didnt hear he still got the clink on the radio, probably because they concentrated on the not proven guilty part. That said, it was clear what his intention was, and who his target was. It could be argued if it was sectarian, why didnt he attack the first Celtic person on the bench

He spent over 100 days on remand, he was not jailed yesterday. The sectarian element was argued and was not proven to have existed, the jury also had the option of removing the sectarian part of the charges to secure an assault conviction. I find it hard to believe that someone who admits having not listened to a 3 minute radio report properly can come out and say they still hope there is scope for someone to be jailed even after a jury, a Sheriff and two legal teams have considered all the facts over a period of four days. No wonder there are so many ill informed opinions on Scottish football web forums.

Welcome to CTO !

Not really wanting to get into all this again, but the Hearts security official, a former police officer, testified that he heard the assailant call Lennon a "Fenian b**tard."

Not sure of that is sectarian enough for the jury or indeed for some on here, but as Scotty says, seen from the outside, the whole episode must paint Scotland in a very poor light.

Even if they chose not to believe that and throw out the sectarian aspect, not an assault...? Really?

Not really wanting to get into all this again, but the Hearts security official, a former police officer, testified that he heard the assailant call Lennon a "Fenian b**tard." Not sure of that is sectarian enough for the jury or indeed for some on here, but as Scotty says, seen from the outside, the whole episode must paint Scotland in a very poor light.

Well, I guess this is really the crux of the whole case .... did the jury believe the Hearts man or did they not ?

If they believed the security guy then I guess they decided that calling Lennon that name was not religiously prejudiced which would then open up the debate to say that certain songs would be allowed again as this case proved the word 'fenian' used in this context was "acceptable" under the eyes of the law. If they didnt believe him, then I wonder why? Was he not credible? or was it perhaps that the defence may have made the case that in the atmosphere and noise there is no way someone could have heard anything ... and the jury went with that ...... i think the latter is more plausible.

Either way, I think a lot of blame must rest with whoever made the decision to keep the religious prejudice tag on the charge when it may have seemed shaky. According to various reports, the accused was prepared to plead guilty to the breach charge and even to the assault charge ... if the religious aspect was removed ... that was the only part he was actually denying. Allowing that would have saved a lot of time and money in terms of court costs etc and you could be relatively sure he would have got a stiff sentence (maybe 100+ days to cover the time already spent in custody) and probably a lovely little FBO for 2 or 3 years. But in the end, just like the example in my opening post, I would say someone over-reached and the only 'result' the cops got was a conviction for breach and not-proven for the rest.

It will be interesting to see what the sentence will be given the time spent in jail and the high profile of the case (made even higher because of other non-related events happening to Lennon that season) ..... I am guessing it will be pretty much the same as he would have got anyway ... 100+ days in jail and a football banning order.

Even if they chose not to believe that and throw out the sectarian aspect, not an assault...? Really?

As mentioned in my previous post, I have read reports that the guy was prepared to plead to the breach charge, and also to the assault charge if the cops would drop the religious tag on them ... they would not, so he pled not guilty.

The more I read, the more it sounds like the cops over-reached on the charges and just could not prove them. they werent prepared to let go of the religious tag in the charge so the case was not proven. In my eyes, it was definitely an assault, and I think most would agree .... but there is no way any of us can say for sure it was religiously motivated. It might have been, it might not have been so perhaps, not-proven is actually the correct verdict !

Even if they chose not to believe that and throw out the sectarian aspect, not an assault...? Really?

As mentioned in my previous post, I have read reports that the guy was prepared to plead to the breach charge, and also to the assault charge if the cops would drop the religious tag on them ... they would not, so he pled not guilty.

The more I read, the more it sounds like the cops over-reached on the charges and just could not prove them. they werent prepared to let go of the religious tag in the charge so the case was not proven. In my eyes, it was definitely an assault, and I think most would agree .... but there is no way any of us can say for sure it was religiously motivated. It might have been, it might not have been so perhaps, not-proven is actually the correct verdict !

I am not sure about where you live but in Scotland it is the procurator fiscal who decides whether or not any parts of the charge can be dropped in return for a guilty plea, not the "cops".

I believe, from reports about the case, the jury in this case were given the option of removing the "religiously aggravated" parts of the charge to allow a guilty verdict on assault.

Edited September 1, 201114 yr by marks

I believe, from reports about the case, the jury in this case were given the option of removing the "religiously aggravated" parts of the charge to allow a guilty verdict on assault.

I guess we are both right !!!

The BBC article says .... "The court had earlier heard that Wilson admitted breaching the peace and attacking Mr Lennon, but denied uttering a sectarian remark." ... it goes on to say "In his closing speech, defence advocate David Nicolson had told the jury that Wilson had earlier been willing to plead guilty to breach of the peace and assault under deletion of making a sectarian remark and being aggravated by religious prejudice, but the Crown had not accepted his plea."

Also - The Record has this ...

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2011/09/01/neil-lennon-tynecastle-attack-witnessed-by-millions-admitted-by-accused-yet-jury-sensationally-rules-thug-did-not-assault-neil-lennon-86908-23387667/

"Millions of TV viewers watched live as Hearts fan Wilson, 26, invaded the pitch at Tynecastle in May and charged towards Lennon on the sideline. The father of three conceded, to his own lawyer in open court, that he lunged at Lennon, struck him on the head and assaulted him. He even tried to plead guilty earlier in his trial to the assault - if prosecutors agreed to remove a claim that the attack was "aggravated by religious prejudice". Crown lawyers rejected his request.

Before the jury retired, Wilson's lawyer David Nicolson specifically reminded them of his client's offer to plead guilty to assault. The panel of eight men and seven women were out for two-and-a-half hours. They asked during their deliberations to look again at a video of Wilson's pitch invasion, which was shown on TV all over the world. But when the jury returned to court, there was stunned silence when they cleared Wilson completely of attacking Lennon.

They convicted the jobless labourer only of breach of the peace, after deleting the part of the charge which alleged that offence was aggravated by religious prejudice. Wilson, of Edinburgh, was found guilty of conducting himself in a disorderly manner, running on to the pitch, running at the away dugout, shouting, swearing, causing disturbance to the crowd and breaching the peace.

The jury could also have found Wilson guilty of assault, after deleting the allegation of religious prejudice in that charge. They did not do so."

Further on it says ....

"Tynecastle security manager Peter Croy told the jury he heard Wilson call Lennon a "fenian b******". Wilson denied it, insisting he called the Ulsterman a "f****** w****r"."

The way I see it Scotty is that people up and down the country are admitting to things they have not done in pleading diets for their cases to be disposed of sooner, usually with the feeling that sentencing will be lighter. The jury had reasons to find that the prosecution did not prove their case either with regard to the religious aggrevation and the assault.

I don't see how you believe we are both right, the cops had nothing to do with pressing for religious aggrivation to be pursued . If anything the PFs office, possibly under pressure of the Scottish Parliament, are to blame for failing to secure a guilty plea on the assault charge and failed to prove their case at trial.

Further on it says ....

"Tynecastle security manager Peter Croy told the jury he heard Wilson call Lennon a "fenian b******". Wilson denied it, insisting he called the Ulsterman a "f****** w****r"."

Perhaps the jury decided to disregard this man's evidence on the fact that he claimed to be a lot closer to the incident than he actually was, if he is mistaken about something as crucial as this then his whole testimony could be erroneous.

So when Terry Butcher or Ally McCoist is punched on the head by a Celtic fan, I take it he'll not be charged with assault then as long as he doesn't utter a religious-hating remark?

This opens the floodgates for pitch invasions and what I would term 'assaults'. If a Hearts fan can punch a manager, why can't a fan of other clubs?

I don't see how you believe we are both right, the cops had nothing to do with pressing for religious aggrivation to be pursued . If anything the PFs office, possibly under pressure of the Scottish Parliament, are to blame for failing to secure a guilty plea on the assault charge and failed to prove their case at trial.

I think you are splitting hairs !!! The police would have laid the initial charges and submitted them to the PFs office, the PFs office would have agreed/disagreed and decided to pursue it (or drop that part) and the lawyers would then have argued it on that basis ... in the end, perhaps it would have been better for me to say "the crown" over-reached !!!

I do however agree with you on the "influence" of the government. whether anyone likes Lennon or not, and whether their reasons are based on sport, personality, or for some people, on blatant or even deep-rooted but hidden bigotry or religious hatred I think most sane people would agree that he did not deserve what was dished out to him last season. After the bullets and packages, this act - even though not related to all that went before - was just the cherry on top and someone had to get the book thrown at them so they could be seen to be acting ... this guy was in the firing line.

I would also agree with you about 'pleading' ... after being in jail for 100+ days (and being back there again awaiting sentencing) he might think he would get out straight away if he could plead it away and get sentenced immediately. definitely a factor.

Like I said, the more I read, the more I think the verdict was actually about right !!!! Not Proven is not guilty and not innocent ... and that fits almost perfectly ! I would also say that now the verdict has been handed down, he should not be languishing in jail awaiting a sentence for breach. He has already been in there for more than 3 months and whether you like the verdict or not, it has been issued and thats that.

Did he commit breach of the peace? - yes. He admitted it and we have probably all seen folk arrested for "breach" - either in stadiums or on the street - for doing far less than a pitch invasion !

Did he commit assault? - Personally I say yes, but that may be based on me forming an opinion about his intent rather than the letter of the law.

If you believe the accused, then yes he seems to confirm he did, but if, as you suggest, saying he was guilty was more like a "plea bargain" then reading all the various reports, it sounds like Lennon himself and perhaps Alan Thomson actually helped the defence when testifying for the prosecution.

Lennon said he heard nothing and felt a slight blow on the back of his head, and Thomson admitted to grabbing the guy's clothing and putting him off balance ... if he is off balance and falling then he could not be purposely assaulting someone (and by the letter of the law there's even a chance Thomson could have been charged with assault by laying his hands on the guy - stupid though that is [have seen it happen with store employees trying to detain shoplifters]). Going by the report, the jury asked to see the video again during deliberations ... maybe this is why they said no to assault? I guess we will never know.

Was it religiously motivated? - i think they were right to throw this out. no-one can prove it. Its a "he said -- he said" situation between the accused and the security guy and although the reports do make mention of the fact that the guy has previous for bad behaviour, there is nothing to suggest anything racially or religiously motivated.

so all in all, a complete cluster**** of a case which could have gone away relatively quietly if the crown had accepted his guilty plea to the actual charges and not sought the premium sentence that a "religious" conviction would have brought because someone - anyone - had to pay for the treatment that Lennon received last season.

the short and long of it, both the religious charge and the assault charge should be kept separate, in case one or other is not proven. I cannot believe that because Neil Lennon was not physically injured they didnt convict. If anything physically, the aggressor would have been the one with more injuries after every one jamp on him, and the way the legal system is going, if the aggressor shouted insults, but not sectarian, if anyone had retorted in a religious retort, could they have also been charged.

Bit like shooting a robber in your house, they get community service, you get prison

Breach of the peace ?

Do football clubs or the SFA have any rights to ban lunatics for life or does that conflict with their human rights.

Bottom line....the CPS thought they had a stick on case to put someone away for a sectarian related crime. They got caught up in the media frenzy (which had him pinned as guilty of being a bigot before the evidence was ever heard)...thought "hey, we could make an example of someone here and really stamp home our authority and show we are serious about tackling the issues".

Unfortunately, they didn't have the evidence to support the charges. The court process WORKED AS IT SHOULD. We can argue the rights and wrongs of no Assault Charge being upheld, but it would have been an even bigger injustice to have found him guilty of acting with racial/religious hatred without sufficient evidence.

The real danger now is that those on the Jury become victims of the, well publicised over the years, abuse that we know some Celtic fans* are capable of dishing out to people who do or say things they don't like.

(* Fans of other clubs have also been guilty of such things, but we are talking about a Celtic related incident here)

I don't really see any difference between Lennon and Souness. If somebody had managed to get on the pitch and give Souness a well-deserved swipe across the pus, nobody would have been claiming sectarian motives for it.

BTW as Lennon claimed that he felt 'something brush his ear' then technically he was assaulted, but in practice the guy only intended to assault him, but never quite made it. In the same way that if you get caught with a carload of white powder which you thought was cocaine but turns out to be Vim, you get off