: Thu Mar 05, 2009 3:35 am  

Isaiah wrote:

What about Eastwood (I think) who had driving offences.

Besides Crocker would not have gotten a jail sentence, cos there aint enough room

we have an empty jail right now

Re: Crocker - Facts required, not rumour or opinion : Thu Mar 05, 2009 8:53 am  

Hutchie wrote:

Have a feeling there may be news on Monday

But the last time you had a feeling of something, your youngest popped out 9 months later.

: Thu Mar 05, 2009 9:23 am  

fredie wrote:

we have an empty jail right now

The whole island is a prison.

Re: Crocker - Facts required, not rumour or opinion : Thu Mar 05, 2009 9:28 am  

Mild mannered Janitor wrote:

But the last time you had a feeling of something, your youngest popped out 9 months later.

Yeah, Hutchie had the feeling someone was round at his whilst he was at work

: Thu Mar 05, 2009 9:50 am  

Isaiah wrote:

What about Eastwood (I think) who had driving offences.

Besides Crocker would not have gotten a jail sentence, cos there aint enough room

I think there's a bit more to the eastwood application, They havev't actually stated why eastwoods application was rejected and maybe there are other reasons, possibly youth offences which don't show on a criminal record.

I am not saying he has any I just cannot believe it is purely for driving convictions

: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:29 am  

Chris28 wrote:

Is that a direct quote of the reason for refusal? It seems to confirm what I thought if so.

The maximum sentence for affray is 3 years, which is why Crocker was caught by it and the refusal IS discretionary. If it was a mandatory refusal, there would be no point reapplying until the conviction is spent - after 5 years.

I know it's going over old ground, but once again the degree of severity must come into play, he was fined $700. That equates to a breach of the peace, as he pleaded guilty to the crime I cannot see the judge knocking chunks of his sentence down to a miserly fine, doesn't add up.

: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:34 am  

me 'n' our kid wrote:

I know it's going over old ground, but once again the degree of severity must come into play, he was fined $700. That equates to a breach of the peace, as he pleaded guilty to the crime I cannot see the judge knocking chunks of his sentence down to a miserly fine, doesn't add up.

I agree, which is why there is cause for a bit of optimism. Affray in the UK carries a max sentence of 3 years which is why the problem arose for Crocker. However, the details of the actual offence should be taken into account, and the fact that he received a low fine (about £300) should mean that he has a bettter chance of success. Fingers crossed!

: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:46 am  

Chris28 wrote:

I agree, which is why there is cause for a bit of optimism. Affray in the UK carries a max sentence of 3 years which is why the problem arose for Crocker. However, the details of the actual offence should be taken into account, and the fact that he received a low fine (about £300) should mean that he has a bettter chance of success. Fingers crossed!

And that the 1st rejection/refusal was discretionary rather than mandatory, would add more optimism.

: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:37 am  

The Kings of Hull wrote:

The whole island is a prison.

if thats the case . its paradise

[Roland_R]

: Thu Mar 05, 2009 2:24 pm  

Right folks.. i know it gets frustrating waiting on the confirmation of him arriving or not arriving... but for now all conversation on Michael Crocker stops here.

We seem to be going around in circles.. so no threads on him untill a further announcement is made anyone proceeding to create tripe on him arriving or not arriving... and we'll just go down the moderation proccess with you getting banned as a result

So for now: