greeneyed wrote: ↑July 9, 2022, 7:58 pm
Have to say, I’ve never before heard of anyone being charged with intimidation because of an argument with a bouncer…
Depends what he allegedly said during the alleged argument. If he just said “this is BS you should let us in”, it’s a simple licensing offence of an excluded person remaining in the vicinity of a licensed premises after refusal.
If he hypothetically said “hey tough ****, I’m gunna find out where you live and kick your head in, watch your back”, then clearly there’s an intimidation offence.
Never mind the fact Starling is 4 foot nothing. The prosecution doesn’t need to prove that the bouncer or anyone actually was intimidated, they have to prove Starling’s words or conduct were intended to make the person fear physical or mental harm.
So even if the bouncer gets in the witness box and says “I wasn’t scared/intimidated”, it’s clear that the (hypothetical) words were said with the intention of causing him to be scared/intimidated, whether successful or not.
It’s the same as the old “offensive language/behaviour in public place” offence. No one needs to actually be offended or even be present. It’s if a “person of reasonable firmness” were to be present, would they be offended?
I have no doubt the additional charges are a load up, similar to the Curtis Scott ones to try to save face, but end up backfiring.
If they had statements or audio capturing any alleged “intimidating threats”, the charges would have been laid at the time or shortly after. Sounds like they’re clutching at straws to make something stick to justify whatever actions they took.
It’ll be interesting to see if anything succeeds. Regardless, he’ll get a huge pay out based on the punching footage alone (in my opinion).
Ata Mariota’s #1 fan. Bless his cotton socks.