It's a Section 39 assault. That's fairly routine, yes?

The violent entry charge - no evidence provided from the prosecution. That tells me there was no violent entry. Mrs Reardon opened the door and Mr Reardon pushed his way past her. Mr & Mrs heading towards divorce. Very tricky one to sort out I would say.


The way you are talking about the 'domestic violence issue' suggests you must know something about their marriage that we don't? All we know is that he grabbed his then wife's arm, causing three bruises, having pushed past her into the house. That's all we know about the 'domestic violence'. So what is it that you know about Reardon's marriage which we don't?


Because I don't jump on bandwagons, I'm not one of the lynch mob, I am capable of thinking independently from the baying crowd and I have a strong sense of fair play and justice. Some of the things that have been said about Reardon and Pryce on these boards are sick and I hope the people who say that crap find themselves on the end of a smear campaign and mob rule, just to see what it feels like.

I'm sorry but this is now getting absolutely ridiculous. I don't know who you are accusing of being sick but what is sick is the failure of Saints fans to face up to reality.

READ THE REPORTS. See what the judge said about the seriousness of the offences.

Note which court they have been bailed to appear before for sentencing - THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE COURT.

[urlhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyleague/5056758/Stuart-Reardon-and-Leon-Pryce-face-prison-over-assaults.html[/url

[urlhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2009/mar/26/stuart-reardon-leon-pryce-assault[/url

if entry had been forced to the premises the charge would have been burglary. the defination in law states that if a person enters a building or part of a building as a trespasser with the intention of commiting theft , damage or assault then the offence is complete. i dont believe this was the case with pryce and reardon. however the premeditated side of it all to me is an aggravating factor and should be punished appropriately

The fact that they weren't charged with burglary is certainly beneficial to their position. Though to commit burglary, when it's an assault rather than a theft, rape or damage, you need to enter with [uthe intent[/u to commit assault (maybe even [uGBH[/u, though I'm a little hazy on that). It's very difficult in this situation (i.e. a domestic dispute) to prove that the miscreants entered with [uthe intent[/u to assault. And knowing how gutless the CPS are these days, it's very unlikely that those charges would ever have been pressed.

However, be under no illusion - the circumstances of this incident will still colour the judge's view. This will not be treated like some street brawl in which the accused could claim that he was the victim of provocation.

A lot of stains fans have been bringing up about Feka at what he did the facts are:-

Feka has got a brilliant conduct record on the field, he punched a guy ONCE

Pryce is a cheap shot mercheant who has done other things in the past that makes him a embarrassement to rugby league ( including grabbing players bits TWICE), what was his excuse this time?????


I REST MY CASE MY LORD !!!!!!!!!!!

and that is the thing, the intent, which will be a key word in all this which is why the offence of burglary never came to light. it is very difficult to prove as the only person that really knows is the suspect. the rape side of the defination was dropped about 2 years ago and is now covered under the new sexual offences act, leaving just the theft, assault and damage side of things, but again its proving that intent. for me it was completely premeditated. why take a 6ft4 16st mate with you to find out about your ex's new relationship. i just hope that the judge takes into account evidence of bad character when it comes to pryce which is something they should do as long as it was covered on interview, as well as the fact that domestic violence is a big buzz word in legal circles. i agree with the cps been gutless, they are completely driven by figures and cost, whatever happens it will be interesting to see if saints have the same stand as warrington did with reardon

I guess we'll see very soon.

not sacked for long hull s just signed him

yeah, bad taste on hulls behalf, they could have waited for the outcome of the sentencing hearing

Really, Well send him down him down if he has previous for sexually assaulting fellow players, embarrassing RL as well...add another 10 years to his sentance. He should get life for those cheap shots. Take your blinkers off.

It wasn't. Burglary was never a charge. Violent entry was, but the prosecution brought no evidence. According to reports, Reardon's wife opened the door to Reardon, who then pushed past his then wife with Pryce following.

Deano G - I read the reports ages ago. Judges pontificate. I'll wait and see by how much when the sentencing is handed down on 23rd.

It's appearing at a domestic violence court because it was an incident between a husband and his then wife. I'm not commenting on their marriage because if she's off shagging another bloke before they are even divorced then that tells me there is something unhappy between them and so this could be as much about her having a go at him via the courts as about him lashing out at her. Domestic issues can be very complicated.

PS: Just to make sure you know - I'm female, so don't go thinking I'm a bloke wanting to swing at women or whatever.

I'm amazed that you had previously read the reports since you seem to think there were no domestic violence issues around Pryce's offence. Are you now retreating from that position?

By the way, I have NEVER referred to Reardon's marriage.

You should think very carefully about your posts, the third paragraph could be read - I'm sure you didn't intend it to - as being an excuse for domestic violence. Whether or not a woman is "off shagging another bloke before they are even divorced" is irrelevant. A woman has the right not to be assaulted by her ex/partner. End of story. It isn't "complicated" at all.

Were you rallying against Greg Bird's signing when IL said he made an offer? Are you boycotting Catalans after they signed a man not only accused of domestic violence, but getting a mate to take the blame for it?

Do you rally against Leo-Latu playing SL after he broke a woman's nose?

Or are you only interested in Saints players?

Nobody is disputing that what they did was wrong - that's why they went to Court. It's why they pleaded guilty. It's why they're awaiting sentencing. It's why Saints will then take further action.

But don't pretend your moral stance has nothing to do with it being a top Saints player, because you would be barely interested otherwise.

Whether you like it or not, this is a big story, and people are going to talk about it. You can write that off of as Wigan fans being snidey if it makes you feel better, but it isn't just Wigan fans and you know it.

You yourself are bouncing about on this issue like a cat on hot bricks, so your attempts to gag people are a bit unconvincing.

Don't want to gag anyone and I care not what happens to Pryce either at sentencing or subsequently - no bouncing there, quite straightforward. If he goes to jail or we decide to sack him and go with Wheeler/Eastmond - fine by me. And of course it is a big story - Leon Pryce is a big name.

What makes me laugh is the notion that the St Helens club are somehow immoral and complicit in Pryce's actions - especially when IL tried to sign someone accused of domestic violence of a much more grave nature (according to the charges) only weeks ago.

Attempts to change the subject won't cut it either. This thread is about Reardon and Pryce. If you want to talk about something else (that never even happened) start a new thread - preferably on your own board, where you're only likely to hear sanitised views about Saints players (which, if you were ever there, you'd already realise).

The first post of this thread asks about Saints response to Pryce's actions and many more relate to Saints' moral stance on the issue. It is not a change of subject to compare one club's stance with that of another - indeed Saints' actions have consistently been compared to those of Cas/KR so it seems to be acceptable one way.

I don't care for sanitised views - my views on Pryce are more damning than most and if he never sees a red vee again I won't lose any sleep. I am just interested in the apparent hypocrisy of chastising Saints for not sacking a player for domestic violence whilst ignoring Wigan's attempts to sign another accused of worse.

And what never even happened? Are you saying IL didn't make an offer for Bird? Or that he hasn't been charged with maliciously inflicting grievous bodily harm and assault occasioning actual bodily harm for allegedly glassing his girlfriend?

THIS THREAD IS GETTING TEDIOUS......AND I THOUGHT IT WAS STILL SUB-JUDICE????

It is, but now mathers has gone it was all saints fault

Bird says he didn't. His girlfriend says he didn't. Doesn't matter what I think. The truth will come out at the trial.

Pryce has already pleaded guilty.

That's the sujbect under discussion.

But as others have said. It's got boring now and there's little more to say - except that, if you don't want to hear what non-St Helensers think about St Helens, you're in the wrong place on here.

It is so ironic that you should be suggesting I don't think carefully about what I post! I'm one of the posters on RLFans who have clearly thought carefully about this whole issue, as well as about Cockayne and his actions, and my opinions are well known on this and other boards.

I don't condone violence at all, except on the rugby league pitch where I love it. So long as it involves Graham owning Bailey. Or indeed any of our players owning Bailey. (I hate Bailey - thug; and an ex-con too)

I'm sorry, but domestic situations often ARE complicated. The police didn't used to get involved in 'domestics'. The two police officers I have known as friends were loathe to become involved in them because they are not as straight forward as it would appear. Alcohol, emotion, provocation - all these things play a part.

Reardon was in the process of divorcing his wife at the time this happened. I believe they were still married when it happened, which is why the case has been listed for the DV court.

The charge of common assault is very broad. If I were to push you, even if it was not hard enough for you to lose your balance, you could have me charged with common assault. In fact, if I touched you and you did not want to be touched by me you could probably try and have me charged with common assault. It is a broad charge and can mean very little or a whole lot, depending. It carries up to a six month jail term but it can also be a fine and/or community service, depending upon whatever other factors the judge takes into consideration when sentencing.

This was about a marriage breaking down. If you are not willing to see that then that's fine, your call, but I prefer to be honest about all this. I do not know what went on in Reardon's marriage and I do not know what went on in that house. What I do know is what the court has released and that all Reardon did was grab his now ex-wife's arm briefly, causing three bruises (which means for a brief moment he grabbed her arm hard).

Sorry, but that's not enough for me to go ape over and call a man a wife beater or God knows what other stupid and possibly defamatory stuff has been said on here. So far as any of us know, Mrs Reardon could now be rubbing her hands with glee that she's potentially ruined her ex-husband's career. How do we know? We don't.

PS: I'm a woman, so I'm unlikely to promote or advocate domestic violence. However, some women are very violent towards their male partners, so don't take that as read. I may be wanting you for my supper. *belch*

I know what the technical definition of "assault" is. It is a broad offence and can range from extremely minor offences to serious ones (see what the judge said about this one).

This case was not "about a marriage breaking down", it was about a man and his friend assaulting his ex and her new partner.

That's domestic violence, that's why they will find themselves in that court for sentencing on 23 April.

Infidelity does not mean that the "innocent" party has any excuse for assault, it is irrelevant.

Keep wriggling all you want but it is extremely simple. It is not "complicated" at all - there is NO excuse for domestic violence.

Youtube: Sean Connery Slap

He sure thinks there is.

I aint wriggling at all. I'm very comfortable with my position on this. Reardon and Pryce were a pair of idiots and Reardon risked both their reputations just to find out whether the rumour that his wife was shagging some bloke was true.

Incidentally, I do believe that provocation is still recognised in law. You might want to make a note of that when you make your sweeping statements about domestic violence. Domestic violence comes in many forms and it is in no way unique to women.

Nothing is ever as simple as it seems. Including marriage breakdowns.

if you must come on here annoying folk, at least do it without posting offensive words please.
wpm