Adam johnson ( nottingham panthers ) dies in freak accident (9 Viewers)

[SBT]

Christ. Was not expecting that at all. How come that has just happened now?

My guess is that the CPS was looking into whether they have much chance of a conviction. Lots of things to consider (the suspect’s background, the events of the game itself etc etc)

I can’t pretend to know a great deal about ice hockey or this kind of law, but from a purely legal point of view it’s a grimly fascinating case and I wonder what the chances of a conviction are. It’s obviously a horrendous way for someone to die.

 

---

[Brighton Sky Blue]

If you try to hurt someone and end up inadvertently killing them then the letter of the law says it’s manslaughter surely.

 

[Grendel]

If you try to hurt someone and end up inadvertently killing them then the letter of the law says it’s manslaughter surely.

Difficult to prove unless there is some proof of an issue between them beforehand

 

[Nick]

If you try to hurt someone and end up inadvertently killing them then the letter of the law says it’s manslaughter surely.

Yeah exactly! Said at the time it looked intentional to lift his leg up.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Difficult to prove unless there is some proof of an issue between them beforehand

Well I guess this is why it’s taken time for him to be arrested-but it doesn’t look like an accident in any case. Going off the definition here for involuntary manslaughter it seems to fit.

 

[Flying Fokker]

My guess is that the CPS was looking into whether they have much chance of a conviction. Lots of things to consider (the suspect’s background, the events of the game itself etc etc)

I can’t pretend to know a great deal about ice hockey or this kind of law, but from a purely legal point of view it’s a grimly fascinating case and I wonder what the chances of a conviction are. It’s obviously a horrendous way for someone to die.

Agreed, plus the timing of announcing it after the Panthers return to the ICE.

 

[SBT]

If you try to hurt someone and end up inadvertently killing them then the letter of the law says it’s manslaughter surely.

I suppose the defence will argue that he didn’t intend to hurt him, only block him or guide him away from a certain part of the rink, as per the rules of the sport (which clearly allow physical contact etc). Don’t know how successful that will be, I don’t know if there are any precedents for this.

 

[Covkid1968#]

Was with my Nottingham season ticket holder mate at te weekend and he showed me the footage. Wish I hadn’t watched it… it’s a fecking karate kick to keep the player away ffs. Awful.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

I suppose the defence will argue that he didn’t intend to hurt him, only block him or guide him away from a certain part of the rink, as per the rules of the sport (which clearly allow physical contact etc). Don’t know how successful that will be, I don’t know if there are any precedents for this.

They might, but looking at how manslaughter is defined in this country I don’t think there’s much of a case for the defence.

 

[SBT]

They might, but looking at how manslaughter is defined in this country I don’t think there’s much of a case for the defence.

Well we shall see if it goes to trial - personally I don’t think it’s an open and shut case at all. It will be very hard to prove he intended to hurt him. The implications for hockey (and all contact sports) could be huge if he’s convicted.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

If you try to hurt someone and end up inadvertently killing them then the letter of the law says it’s manslaughter surely.

Didn't think you had to try and hurt someone for that. Thought it was just a reckless or avoidable action that resulted in death.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

Difficult to prove unless there is some proof of an issue between them beforehand

Doesn't need to be any proof of an issue between them before anyway. If there was then it's more third degree murder.

And it's ice hockey. There's arguments, pushing and fights all the time.

 

[HuckerbyDublinWhelan]

Doesn't need to be any proof of an issue between them before anyway. If there was then it's more third degree murder.

And it's ice hockey. There's arguments, pushing and fights all the time.

This has to be taken into account - it’s ice hockey, it’s a physical sport.

it would be the same with cricket - I know it’s Australia but the principles would be the same. The Phil Hughes incident is similar.

the intention of a bouncer is to physically intimidate. Unless there’s any sort of extremities to the violence, you can’t really charge

 

[David O'Day]

This has to be taken into account - it’s ice hockey, it’s a physical sport.

it would be the same with cricket - I know it’s Australia but the principles would be the same. The Phil Hughes incident is similar.

the intention of a bouncer is to physically intimidate. Unless there’s any sort of extremities to the violence, you can’t really charge

the principles are not the same

there's a big difference between bowling a ball near someones head and intentionally committing foul play by going in sharpened blade first

I am not on top of the incident enough to say if it is manslaughter but it is nowt like the Phil Hughes incident

 

[HuckerbyDublinWhelan]

the principles are not the same

there's a big difference between bowling a ball near someones head and intentionally committing foul play by going in sharpened blade first

I am not on top of the incident enough to say if it is manslaughter but it is nowt like the Phil Hughes incident

Well the risk is the same, if you bowl a cork ball in the direction of someone’s head there’s a significant risk it could cause serious harm. (I’m not suggesting it’s a criminal act)

Ice Hockey is a physical sport, you’re going around on blades, I’m really surprised it hasn’t happened before. There is case law that suggest you consent to the risk of harm in professional sports, and you can’t face criminal charges from a bad challenge. Think it’s R v Brown. Not 100-% though

proving someone went in intentionally blade first would be nearly impossible, and even then you’d be looking at murder not manslaughter

 

[wingy]

Uu

Well the risk is the same, if you bowl a cork ball in the direction of someone’s head there’s a significant risk it could cause serious harm. (I’m not suggesting it’s a criminal act)

Ice Hockey is a physical sport, you’re going around on blades, I’m really surprised it hasn’t happened before. There is case law that suggest you consent to the risk of harm in professional sports, and you can’t face criminal charges from a bad challenge. Think it’s R v Brown. Not 100-% though

proving someone went in intentionally blade first would be nearly impossible, and even then you’d be looking at murder not manslaughter

Well despite the edict from overall governing body saying mandatory neck guard's it still only advisory in the particular league.

 

[fernandopartridge]

The only thing that will lead to a conviction is if there was some sort of threats/messages exchanged by the two players on social media or something before the game. Although I believe he has intentionally tried to hurt Johnson, I think it's very unlikely he'll be convicted purely based on the footage.

Manslaughter charge, what are you on about threats for?

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk

 

[Nuskyblue]

I heard an ex ice hockey player talking about this incident, it was his opinion that it was a freak accident. Not sure if this is a widely held opinion in the professional ranks or not but that was his view (he was the guy that used to pundits for it on sky).

From the way his leg moved he said it was more akin to his blade hitting a ridge in the ice and being kicked up not a deliberate kicking action, he also said that the footage wasn't particularly high quality iirc.

Either way it is going to be hard to make a conviction stick tbh. If anything the blame would be pointed at the organisation for not providing correct PPE as it's more an occupational hazard than anything.

 

[David O'Day]

Well the risk is the same, if you bowl a cork ball in the direction of someone’s head there’s a significant risk it could cause serious harm. (I’m not suggesting it’s a criminal act)

Ice Hockey is a physical sport, you’re going around on blades, I’m really surprised it hasn’t happened before. There is case law that suggest you consent to the risk of harm in professional sports, and you can’t face criminal charges from a bad challenge. Think it’s R v Brown. Not 100-% though

proving someone went in intentionally blade first would be nearly impossible, and even then you’d be looking at murder not manslaughter

utter nonsense

there's a very big difference in bowling a ball with the intention of making someone duck and going sharpened blade first into someone

R Vs. Brown seems to do the opposite of what you say? It said consent is no defence?

R v Brown - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[stupot07]

Manslaughter charge, what are you on about threats for?

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk

Yeah Manslaughter Gross Negligence will likely be the charge if there was one. Doesn't need to be deliberate or with malice, but just an act that goes beyond reasonable risk for the sport.

And for the example above about cricket, there is an accepted risk of bowling bouncers that has been around the years, which is why there are helmets, pads etc. there is no way that the practice of throwing a skate in someone's face at head height would ever be an acceptable risk in ice hockey.

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk

 

[HuckerbyDublinWhelan]

utter nonsense

there's a very big difference in bowling a ball with the intention of making someone duck and going sharpened blade first into someone

R Vs. Brown seems to do the opposite of what you say? It said consent is no defence?

R v Brown - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Case law is wrong - did say I wasn’t 100% - there’s one that refers to specifically sports.

again in terms of sports there isn’t a difference in risk, if that ball is coming at you at 90mph it’s like a brick being hurled at you head. There’s inherit and significant risk.

 

[HuckerbyDublinWhelan]

R v Barnes is the case

 

[rob9872]

CPS shouldn't bother and just check on here instead. As always we've got experts on law, ice hockey and understand what was intended.

Case closed

 

[HuckerbyDublinWhelan]

CPS shouldn't bother and just check on here instead. As always we've got experts on law, ice hockey and understand what was intended.

Case closed

I mean considering I have a law degree and work within law, I do have some knowledge of that area

 

[chiefdave]

I’m really surprised it hasn’t happened before.

it has

 

[David O'Day]

I mean considering I have a law degree and work within law, I do have some knowledge of that area

And so would the CPS who would be directing the decision to prosecute and I guess that means they have some knowledge of the "area".

Instead of R vs. Brown you were likely thinking of R vs. Barnes which does partly say that consenting to taking part in sport can be a defence bit but states the following

“If what occurs goes beyond what a player can reasonably be regarded as having accepted by taking part in the sport, this indicates that the conduct will not be covered by the defence.”



Law degree or not your still chatting bollocks if you think a bouncer in cricket is in any way the same

 

[Langers70]

I honestly can't see how anybody can say this is accidental.It looks like an aimed kick while wearing an ice skate.Did he mean to kill him? I dont think so.However he meant to hit him resulting in this tragedy,to me this is the very definition of manslaughter.

 

[HuckerbyDublinWhelan]

And so would the CPS who would be directing the decision to prosecute and I guess that means they have some knowledge of the "area".

Instead of R vs. Brown you were likely thinking of R vs. Barnes which does partly say that consenting to taking part in sport can be a defence bit but states the following

“If what occurs goes beyond what a player can reasonably be regarded as having accepted by taking part in the sport, this indicates that the conduct will not be covered by the defence.”



Law degree or not your still chatting bollocks if you think a bouncer in cricket is in any way the same

As stated above i did mention the correct case law.

I was referring to the intention aspect of it, a bouncer aimed at the head has significant intention of move out the way or it hits you. It is in itself a dangerous act

min terms of this particular challenge, the guy who causes the incident is hit by another , there’s no way of saying that he intended of going foot up, the speed of the actual incident, whilst on ice and a possible unexpected collision.

Ice Hockey itself and it’s nature will and needs to be taken into account - unless they can prove he intended going foot up there’s so many variables that can impact the challenge

 

[Deleted member 5849]

I mean considering I have a law degree and work within law

Career criminal?

 

[David O'Day]

As stated above i did mention the correct case law.

I was referring to the intention aspect of it, a bouncer aimed at the head has significant intention of move out the way or it hits you. It is in itself a dangerous act

min terms of this particular challenge, the guy who causes the incident is hit by another , there’s no way of saying that he intended of going foot up, the speed of the actual incident, whilst on ice and a possible unexpected collision.

Ice Hockey itself and it’s nature will and needs to be taken into account - unless they can prove he intended going foot up there’s so many variables that can impact the challenge

he raises his foot on purpose, it's clearly not an accident

the other people with law degrees seem to believe this as well so hence the arrest and charging

i get it, if you worked for the cps on this you would be advising against charging but the cps believes there is a case

 

[David O'Day]

I honestly can't see how anybody can say this is accidental.It looks like an aimed kick while wearing an ice skate.Did he mean to kill him? I dont think so.However he meant to hit him resulting in this tragedy,to me this is the very definition of manslaughter.

this is what the cpps seem to think as well

 

[HuckerbyDublinWhelan]

he raises his foot on purpose, it's clearly not an accident

the other people with law degrees seem to believe this as well so hence the arrest and charging

i get it, if you worked for the cps on this you would be advising against charging but the cps believes there is a case

I don’t work for the CPS, the CPS I believe haven’t said anything. He’s not been charged yet

I’m more of the opinion that he’s just been arrested to provide an interview. I’d be very surprised if any criminal proceedings came from this.

it is your opinion he raised his foot on purpose, I’m of the opinion that there’s too many variables in proving any kind of intention.

 

[Langers70]

I don’t work for the CPS, the CPS I believe haven’t said anything. He’s not been charged yet

I’m more of the opinion that he’s just been arrested to provide an interview. I’d be very surprised if any criminal proceedings came from this.

it is your opinion he raised his foot on purpose, I’m of the opinion that there’s too many variables in proving any kind of intention.

His foot is raised nobody can dispute that.Its the kicking movement that bothers me.Having said that of course theres variables,i watch Coventry Blaze quite often,ice hockey is fast,furious and very aggressive at times.However that kicking motion doesnt look like any type of natural movement to me.

 

[rob9872]

I would've thought that despite the difference in the Hughes Cricket incident versus this, it would definitely be cited as part of the defence to highlight that tragedy can occur in sport. As someone without any co-ordination who can't skate, let alone play hockey on ice, it's impossible for me and I assume many of you, to say how accidental it was. It looks an unusual position, it looks clumsy at best, but again I'd trust the word more of those who play or have played the game and there appears to be possibly multiple opinions on each side. On top of that, for a jury without such expertise, to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt feels a stretch.

 

[Otis]

I would've thought that despite the difference in the Hughes Cricket incident versus this, it would definitely be cited as part of the defence to highlight that tragedy can occur in sport. As someone without any co-ordination who can't skate, let alone play hockey on ice, it's impossible for me and I assume many of you, to say how accidental it was. It looks an unusual position, it looks clumsy at best, but again I'd trust the word more of those who play or have played the game and there appears to be possibly multiple opinions on each side. On top of that, for a jury without such expertise, to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt feels a stretch.

Ah, but if I can refer you to Robinson v Wade, 1872 and Alcock v Blenkinsop, 1923, you will that reasonable doubt can indeed be found.