Gary Neville

[sirlearie]

hi , can anyone tell me what neville actually said/wrote allegedly re giggs trial which has been referred to attorney general ?
lots of news items but no actual statement
thanks .

[Gromit]

While a trial is in process and the the Judge has imposed reporting restrictions in order to get a fair trial, then anything written, no matter how innocuous, is contempt of court.
I assume that is how Neville’s Tweet is being interpretted. NJ will hopefully confirm and explain better than I can.

[roadman]

i think its going to be very hard to find the comment

[FatticusInch]

Nevill claims that his remarks were aimed at the Glazers and the way the club is run atm.

[Gromit]

If someone told Neville that the Tweet was Contempt of Court, he would probably delete it at the earliest possible opportunity, and not repeat what he said.

[Ellipsis]

Here's a bit from Twitter that implies an ambiguous Tweet that he wrote on the first day of the trial could be interpreted as being about the trial, in which case it could (that word again) be a contempt of court. What might make things interesting is that Neville posts a lot of left-leaning stuff on Twitter, whereas the attorney-general is of course a Tory, Suella Braverman, a recent contender for PM ...

Gary Neville has been referred to the attorney-general’s office for potential prosecution for contempt of court by the judge presiding over Ryan Giggs’s trial.

Neville, 47, a friend of Giggs since they played at Manchester United, sent a tweet at 4am on the trial’s opening day, but it was not brought to the attention of Judge Hilary Manley until the morning of the third day.

A source close to Neville said that the Sky Sports pundit disputes the allegation, according to The Daily Telegraph.

They said that the tweet he sent on August 8 was in reaction to fan protests against his former club’s American owners.

Peter Wright QC, for the prosecution, said: “It’s not known whether she has seen [the tweet], but in the context of the evidence that has already been given, that is a matter we may seek to return to”

[FatticusInch]

Ironically, I’d imagine they’ll spend more money investigating this than at Giggs trial.

[Gromit]

The Giggs Trial Judge referred the matter to the Attorney General with these words…

// "However, given the author is a person with a high public profile, [the comment] could be seen to be an attempt to influence ongoing criminal proceedings and could be contempt of court. //

This was only revealed after the Judge had discharged the Jury after the trial had collapsed, so the Tweet could have been anytime from the first to the last day of proceedings.

[drmorgans]

The trial didn't "collapse" so much as the jurors couldn't reach even a majority verdict.

[Gromit]

OK, it didn’t collapse, the Judge had to discharge the Jury because they couldn’t make a majority verdict. The Trial had ended, so the Judge was able to reveal the possible Contempt of Court against Neville.

[Ellipsis]

I have seen the tweet, images of it still exist on the Internet. I won't post here on AB because I'm not sure what impact sharing it would have on a future trial or on the owners of AB. But you can find it quite easily if you really want to.

[Peter Pedant]

I was very surprised by this. It may be that the hacks dont know their lu-lus from their elbows again....

Gary Neville tweeted an un-named tweet which he withdrew and some said it was about the trial, and HE said ( gormless voice needed) " Was it? I meant so and so." Three days later....

The Crown said " we may return to this!" - depending on what is said, it may or may not be contempt !
and that depends on whether the tweet concerns later evidence

The defence ( Giggsy remember, not Gary) said we know nothing about this AT ALL !

and the jury couldnt agree
I mean who cares really if one wag whacks another or one hubby humps some other hubby's wag?

and then it was sent orf ( referred ) to the Att-gen

whihc is V Odd Indeed because 1) contmept is decided by the judge hearing the case and 2) I thought it had been held previously that gormless comment on twidda was NOT discussion (*)

(*) I am sure ther was a previous case where someone screamed ( they always scream) "foopy-foo this is about a case and it is Contempt of the most vicious genus!"
and the judge ( judgie-baby, (lord)) said in a tired voice
"oh shut up and get on with it: have you seen the sort of people who use twidda. Contempt application dismissed!"

which I thought kinda odd at the time.

I think the att gen will say - "ged artta here! I gart my lunch to eat!"

[Ellipsis]

If the tweet was about the trial then it was, at the very worst, Neville's opinion of the veracity of the prosecution's claims ...

[jno]

the tweet in question could have related to anything at all. It's not tagged to Giggs or the Glazers or anyone. I'd be surprised if anything so vague - you can hardly even call it ambiguous - could be found to show contempt of anything. But if Cruella is involved, who knows.

[Peter Pedant]

There is a lot on the internet about Neville telling the Glazers to get back to stateside
and allow Man united to thrive
( some question about asset stripping - they run it as a business and havent been investing)