Manchester City fans banned from games after attacking supporters at Southampton Premier League match

Daily Echo: Saints against Man City last December Saints against Man City last December

LESS than 24 hours after cheering their heroes to Premier League success, three Manchester City fans have been told they cannot attend their games for the next three years.

The trio, who include two brothers, have been banned from going to the club's home and away matches following a fracas outside Southampton's St Marys Stadium in December when the teams played out a 1-1 draw.

Prosecutor Siobhan Linsley told the city crown court how Alex Hurst got involved in a row with fellow football fan Simon Hull whose wife tried to step between them. Hurst's younger brother Daniel then came running up behind them and punched both of the couple, knocking her to the ground.

Southampton Supporters tried to break up the commotion, only for Vost to run through them and punch Mr Hull to the ground where he either twice kicked or stamped on his legs.

Alex Hurst, 25, from Mossley, Manchester; Daniel Hurst, 21, from Ashton-Under-Lyne, and Vost, 25, from Stalybridge, admitted affray.

They received an eight month suspended sentence with £500 court costs and in addition to being banned from Manchester City matches, were told they could not attend England internationals as well.

Judge Peter Henry told the trio: “This was an unpleasant incident which could have led to a mass disturbance. It didn't lead to serious injury but if it had done, I would have imposed an immediate prison sentence.”

Fiona Wise, defending, said they had acted out of character and were horrified by their behaviour.

Comments (7)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:42am Wed 14 May 14

The Wickham Man says...

I see the Duty Liar - er I mean defending solicitor - thought thy had acted out of character. Really? Does she know them?
I see the Duty Liar - er I mean defending solicitor - thought thy had acted out of character. Really? Does she know them? The Wickham Man
  • Score: 14

12:21pm Wed 14 May 14

fritzer says...

You'r dead right sport, what peole will do for a quid at the local court house!! must have came down on the same bus.
You'r dead right sport, what peole will do for a quid at the local court house!! must have came down on the same bus. fritzer
  • Score: 7

12:41pm Wed 14 May 14

theamazingrob says...

The Wickham Man wrote:
I see the Duty Liar - er I mean defending solicitor - thought thy had acted out of character. Really? Does she know them?
Maybe they did? do YOU know them? End of the day the evidence for those mitigating circumstances was considered and obviously wasn't strong enough, given the sentence handed. I don't understand why people knock defence council, you need two sides to make an equitable judgement

On a side note I'm not convinced that a banning order is really a necessity; if a fight at a pub starts because two people disagree should you be banned from all pubs? what about shopping centres? If the fight had nothing to do with "football hooliganism" and was just merely circumstantial of being outside a stadium does that justify being banned?
[quote][p][bold]The Wickham Man[/bold] wrote: I see the Duty Liar - er I mean defending solicitor - thought thy had acted out of character. Really? Does she know them?[/p][/quote]Maybe they did? do YOU know them? End of the day the evidence for those mitigating circumstances was considered and obviously wasn't strong enough, given the sentence handed. I don't understand why people knock defence council, you need two sides to make an equitable judgement On a side note I'm not convinced that a banning order is really a necessity; if a fight at a pub starts because two people disagree should you be banned from all pubs? what about shopping centres? If the fight had nothing to do with "football hooliganism" and was just merely circumstantial of being outside a stadium does that justify being banned? theamazingrob
  • Score: -25

2:16pm Wed 14 May 14

100%HANTSBOY says...

theamazingrob wrote:
The Wickham Man wrote: I see the Duty Liar - er I mean defending solicitor - thought thy had acted out of character. Really? Does she know them?
Maybe they did? do YOU know them? End of the day the evidence for those mitigating circumstances was considered and obviously wasn't strong enough, given the sentence handed. I don't understand why people knock defence council, you need two sides to make an equitable judgement On a side note I'm not convinced that a banning order is really a necessity; if a fight at a pub starts because two people disagree should you be banned from all pubs? what about shopping centres? If the fight had nothing to do with "football hooliganism" and was just merely circumstantial of being outside a stadium does that justify being banned?
I sort of get your point, but, regardless of where the fracas takes place, you cannot justify running up behind a woman and punching her to the ground...this is not normal behaviour. ..so I suggest that this chap has a violent streak.
This sort of behaviour is not acceptable in any form, and should have carried a custodial sentence, whichever way the defence team spin it.
[quote][p][bold]theamazingrob[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Wickham Man[/bold] wrote: I see the Duty Liar - er I mean defending solicitor - thought thy had acted out of character. Really? Does she know them?[/p][/quote]Maybe they did? do YOU know them? End of the day the evidence for those mitigating circumstances was considered and obviously wasn't strong enough, given the sentence handed. I don't understand why people knock defence council, you need two sides to make an equitable judgement On a side note I'm not convinced that a banning order is really a necessity; if a fight at a pub starts because two people disagree should you be banned from all pubs? what about shopping centres? If the fight had nothing to do with "football hooliganism" and was just merely circumstantial of being outside a stadium does that justify being banned?[/p][/quote]I sort of get your point, but, regardless of where the fracas takes place, you cannot justify running up behind a woman and punching her to the ground...this is not normal behaviour. ..so I suggest that this chap has a violent streak. This sort of behaviour is not acceptable in any form, and should have carried a custodial sentence, whichever way the defence team spin it. 100%HANTSBOY
  • Score: 17

4:07pm Wed 14 May 14

St.Ray says...

Low life Manchester scum
Low life Manchester scum St.Ray
  • Score: 2

4:41pm Wed 14 May 14

Totton Ric says...

A few years back Saints fans got time for not even throwing a punch at the pompey game,city fan's throw punches with nothing apart from an 8 month suspended sentence !
A few years back Saints fans got time for not even throwing a punch at the pompey game,city fan's throw punches with nothing apart from an 8 month suspended sentence ! Totton Ric
  • Score: 11

9:24am Thu 15 May 14

The Man who says Hmmm says says...

theamazingrob wrote:
The Wickham Man wrote:
I see the Duty Liar - er I mean defending solicitor - thought thy had acted out of character. Really? Does she know them?
Maybe they did? do YOU know them? End of the day the evidence for those mitigating circumstances was considered and obviously wasn't strong enough, given the sentence handed. I don't understand why people knock defence council, you need two sides to make an equitable judgement

On a side note I'm not convinced that a banning order is really a necessity; if a fight at a pub starts because two people disagree should you be banned from all pubs? what about shopping centres? If the fight had nothing to do with "football hooliganism" and was just merely circumstantial of being outside a stadium does that justify being banned?
Hmm
[quote][p][bold]theamazingrob[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Wickham Man[/bold] wrote: I see the Duty Liar - er I mean defending solicitor - thought thy had acted out of character. Really? Does she know them?[/p][/quote]Maybe they did? do YOU know them? End of the day the evidence for those mitigating circumstances was considered and obviously wasn't strong enough, given the sentence handed. I don't understand why people knock defence council, you need two sides to make an equitable judgement On a side note I'm not convinced that a banning order is really a necessity; if a fight at a pub starts because two people disagree should you be banned from all pubs? what about shopping centres? If the fight had nothing to do with "football hooliganism" and was just merely circumstantial of being outside a stadium does that justify being banned?[/p][/quote]Hmm The Man who says Hmmm says
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree