- This topic has 44 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 3 hours, 39 minutes ago by
.
- Posts
I am not defending Williams. He has clearly lost his self control and now he is paying a very heavy price.
However, I can’t help comparing his treatment with that of Mike Amesbury. The MP for Runcorn and Helsby assaulted a constituent and continued to attack the victim when he was defenceless on the ground.
Amesbury was sentenced to 10 weeks, which was suspended for two years on appeal.
No doubt someone will argue there are legal differences and nuances between the two cases. Maybe so – but it adds up to an impression that some people are treated more favourably under the law than others.
No matter what he did, it shouldn’t affect his family, employees and owners. Once people have to trade places just to make sure they have an income things become difficult to assess. Even in a court room.
In the report of this on the BBC website it says
“David Elias KC, defending, said: “A prison sentence will not just impact immediate family but also impact employees, suppliers, and the people who own the horses he trains”.
Elias said Williams was of “exemplary character and 570 character references have been received since his conviction”.
Williams took over the family dairy farm as an 18-year-old before moving into racehorse training in 1996.
He established Evan Williams Racing in 2003 and became one of Wales’ most successful trainers with top-four finishes in five consecutive Grand Nationals at Aintree between 2009 and 2013. He trained Secret Reprieve, which won the 2020 Welsh Grand National at Chepstow.
Williams’s business employs about 30 people, and his wife took over his licence a day after he was convicted and at the start of the Cheltenham Festival.
His wife’s racing licence will expire at the end of next month and it would not be “viable” for her to run the business.
Elias said “Evan Williams is the business he has the training knowledge and there is no-one else to take over this business” which was described as the biggest rural employer in the Vale of Glamorgan.”
So it sounds as if the business is finished.
Can’t help but feel the previous incident resulted in ptsd. If someone had threatened to burn your house down you would react violently to someone wandering around at night with a torch. Years ago late one night someone walked into my porch and tried to open my front door. I’ve never been one of those people who are scared to be in the house alone when it comes to people ( ghostly things being a different matter altogether) but it freaked me out for ages afterwards. And I don’t know how I’d feel about being in a property that had been burgled. I think I might have to move. So the fact is that Williams felt his house, his family and his horses were under threat.
He assaulted an innocent member of the public , his occupation has nothing to do with it , a prison sentence was fully justified , the horses will go to other stables as will his staff
Pick 3 on Saturday champion 2025/2026
No doubt someone will argue there are legal differences and nuances between the two cases. Maybe so – but it adds up to an impression that some people are treated more favourably under the law than others.
Allow me
Whilst I quite agree with you on the impression it gives, Williams was convicted of grievous bodily harm with intent, Amesbury’s case was assault so they are different offences. GBH is presumably considered a worse offence to start with and then you add intent.I’m no legal eagle but I would guess the presence of a weapon in Williams’ case would be an aggravating factor. Anyone can swing a punch in the spur of the moment, there’s more thought process behind picking up a weapon and then using it.
Amesbury was sentenced to 10 weeks, which was suspended for two years on appeal.
No doubt someone will argue there are legal differences and nuances between the two casesThe nuances being that Amesbury was convicted of Common Assault which carries a maximum penalty of 6 months imprisonment, didn’t use a weapon and as far as I know didn’t lie about how the victim sustained his injuries.
However, Williams was convicted of Grievous Bodily Harm with Intent which carries a maximum term of 7 years, used a weapon, and lied about how the injuries were inflicted. Furthermore, according to the BBC report, the injured party has not fully recovered.
So, if Amesbury got off lightly it could be argued that Williams did too.
Presumably Williams can lodge an appeal if he and his legal team believe he’s been harshly treated.
Apologies for more or less repeating your words Richard, I pressed the submit button soon after you did the same
HDLG – Having been involved in a 4½ month court trial where things aren’t as black and white as your comment would indicate (if only they were, life would be so much simpler), there will be a lot of evidence that never gets out into the media/public domain that will show varying levels of mitigation for an individual(s) actions.
Having had that court experience it certain made me less inclined to jump to automatic conclusions of guilt or not based off of just the small percentage of information that news outlets reports on to Joe Public.
In no way shape or form do I condone what he did to that gentleman and there of course must be punishment for his actions but I am just not sure how much a prison sentence in this case will serve as it would appear so out of character for the man given what we know about him (calling the police instead in a subsequent incident that happened) and how he has got to where he is in his professional life and what he does in the community prior to this incident.
Had there been any kind of history with this type of behaviour then yes a prison term would be 100% warranted but maybe a suspended sentence with court mandated training and/or counselling for any underlying issues may have been a more constructive way to go.
With regards to his business I hope some workaround can be found (does he have an assistant trainer that could step in?) for the next 18 months or so – it is not quite as simple as horses and staff just going to other yards and we all go on our merry way.
LD he’s assaulted a innocent old man repeatibly with a hockey stick , the jury justifiably found him guilty and the judge judged it to require a 3 year sentence , there is no argument , let’s simplify this , imagine he did this to your parents …
Pick 3 on Saturday champion 2025/2026
And it is easy that the horses and staff can be moved , plenty empty stables in the current financial climate …
Pick 3 on Saturday champion 2025/2026
Richard / Drone – be that as it may, Amesbury committed a serious assault, including when his victim was defenceless, and in effect received no custodial sentence once the suspension is taken into account.
The impression is that someone with Establishment connections was able to get off effectively scot free.
I don’t object to Williams receiving a custodial sentence. It was merited – but I believe Amesbury should have received one as well.
Justice should be seen to be done.
As far as I am concerned Williams went out with intent. He saw what he thought was a lamper and was “tooled up” to confront them, the fact this apparent lamper had a cockapoo with one of those collars which glow in the dark should have told him otherwise.
The more I know the less I understand.
The law is, as LD notes, a complicated beast. It would be helpful if news reports gave us some context, things might make more sense if they were explained better although I suspect that most journalists have about as much knowledge of the law as I do.
I agree to an extent Corker, Amesbury’s apparent lenient treatment did irk somewhat.
However, as LD73 writes above, the public tend to only get snippets from trials rather than the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so best to leave it there I reckon.
Whilst I quite agree with you on the impression it gives, Williams was convicted of grievous bodily harm with intent, Amesbury’s case was assault so they are different offences. GBH is presumably considered a worse offence to start with and then you add intent.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.