It is nice to see that Adrian Sutil is pitching hard for a Force India drive in 2013. There is nothing wrong with a young man having ambition, and we are all entitled to a few mistakes in life, although sticking a broken champagne flute into someone else’s neck is perhaps rather less easy to forgive than punching someone on the nose, or kicking them up the backside. The judge in the case was certainly not very impressed when she dealt with Sutil, convicting him of “Gefährlicher Körperverletzung”, which translates as either grievous bodily harm or aggravated assault. He was given an 18-month prison sentence, suspended for a three year period, plus a fine of €200,000.
When talk began of a comeback with Force India, there were immediately questions about possible problems when it comes to entering all the countries where there are F1 races. Under Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), for example, if you have committed or been convicted of a crime, you may not be allowed to enter Canada. In other words, you may be declared “criminally inadmissible.” This occurs for those with convictions for both minor and serious crimes, such as theft, assault, manslaughter, dangerous driving and driving while under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
Depending on the crime you commit, how long ago it was and your behaviour since the sentence, you may one day be admissible to Canada again, but you will need to satisfy an immigration officer that you meet the legal requirements to be deemed rehabilitated or that you have been granted a pardon. Getting rehabilitated for a major crime takes about 10 years and getting a pardon is also not the work of the a moment.
However, if Sutil says it is all not a problem then I guess we have to accept that he has done his homework properly and is not just waffling and hoping to get around the problem if he does get the drive.
Thank you Joe for acknowledging the seriousness of his crime. I have read many reports about Sutil’s possible return recently, but no one has bothered to mention what he was convicted for. I hope he does not return to the sport, for as Joe says his crime was dangerous and could have been fatal, so in my opinion Sutil has no place in F1.
Any chance of Bruno Senna getting the force india or caterham seat Joe?
Caterham are considering using Bruno Senna the same way Williams used him in 2012. They want his money to help fund a future car that they have no intention of letting him drive. Please see Cyril Abiteboul comments below. Bruno Senna is their “radical” candidate. Joe, please correct me if I’m wrong.
From Formula1.com:
Question: What kind of driver are you looking for as a team mate for a youngster with one season under his belt? Is the right driver still available?
Cyril Abiteboul: There are different options. One option is someone who he can learn from and who he can use as his benchmark for what we want from both our drivers. Another option, more radical, is to accept the fact that 2013 is a transition year that we use to continue building the team before a period of greater stability in 2014, when a lot of other things in the package will change. Both types of candidates are out there, and we are close to making a decision.
I have no idea.
Joe ,according to you who is faster Sutil or kamui.
It is impossible to say
I would be amazed if he got through US immigration control. A UK relative of mine was denied entry to the US for a vacation a few years ago. He admitted on a visa application that he had a minor conviction from his youth, decades before. Canada was no problem at all. If Sutil does get into the US there is something wrong with the system. But I shouldn’t be surprised by that should I?
These problems can be avoided entirely when one has a unique talent, which is a recognized category allowing a short-term entry for a specific performance, for example. A good immigration lawyer will be working with authorities long before the actual entry. There are many types of visas; it is different than going on holiday.
“a good immigration lawyer”
….and there we have it. I might not be able to enter some of the countries if I had the same conviction, but then I am not part of the moneyed elite.
Being convicted of a crime doesn’t guarantee no entry to a country. On a recent trip to the US, I was on the same flight as an ex-rugby league player who had had numerous convictions, including drug related, and he had little problem through US Customs.
I believe the first step is to be up front prior to the flight and get approval before leaving rather than arrive at border control with fingers crossed.
Canada is famous for its laws on these matters.
It’s worth recalling that a lot of the rules being mentioned are very much of “the worst case scenario” end of the scale. Yes, Sutil COULD be blocked from access to this country and that country on basis of his conviction, but whether he WOULD be is a completely different matter. A good lawyer could make a case of precedent based on the fact that people convicted of similar and worse crimes have been allowed access, or on grounds of he being entitled to pursue his career having shown contrition etc., or on grounds of him making a significant contribution to an event ‘of national importance’.
I’m pretty ambivalent about Sutil generally, to be honest I’d be in favour of him not getting the FI seat, not on basis of his conviction, but simply because I think there are drivers of equivalent or superior ability out there. Nothing against him, but he seemed to me to be a pretty consistently OK driver who had a reasonable F1 career but it’s time now for someone else to get the gig.
Given the option Sutil is superior among them.
“It’s worth recalling that a lot of the rules being mentioned are very much of “the worst case scenario” end of the scale.”
Good point.
Worst case scenario?
Stabbing someone in the neck with a broken glass? That is about a centimetre away from murder.
That being said – Mike Tyson’s been able to go to Australia, in spite of a rape conviction.
Oh great. That makes it right then… I must stick my neighbour in the neck with a champagne glass.
Ha! Before you go and invite your pitpass.com friends to a champagne bar, I was only making the observation that authorities can overlook even worst-case scenarios if they want to.
Who claimed that that makes it right?
No one is saying it’s right. We’re just saying it’s how things work, even in, especially in, the free western democracies.
There are two sets of laws, one for the “regular Joe”, another for those that can afford high priced lawyers.
No, if you apply F1 precision, that is putting it into the trees on a warm up lap. In a safety car.
In other words, far less distant than you think.
Life and death are every bit as precise, as the ring of a valve, when you mess with those things that keep our bodies connected.
I liked Sutil, or had no reason ever against him, and I will allow that many systems force a guilty plea in return for not eating a decade of life, assuming you have the nigh infinite money to fight that long, but I do not think we should have him back.
Sorry, but No.
Let other life be good to him, he’s certainly repenting, but there are just so many others deserving.
I made enough mistakes in my younger life. I never once tried to cover them up and come back the same way. And, yes, I’d sit with the guy for the proverbial beer. Skip the champagne … oops … but as a human, and a not lousy racer, I would. But right now, oh, for the love of all that is sacred, we do not need more trouble in F1.
He is quite young enough, and of enough talent, to do so much he may not appreciate. The kind of talent I bet many who read here are jealous to have the chance or youth to try again. Kind readily applied anywhere. Someone needs to tell him this, and to tell him he is okay. Maybe a nice girl, or someone else who cares.
I am deeply sorry for Adrian. One of my most important friends is a criminal defender, and I know it is possible to simply be eaten, and innocent.
There is still so much else in motorsport, also.
But, dammit, kiddo, do you really want back in with FI?
That really would suck.
Sorry, what I meant by my intro is that you can kill with a change of stroke far less precise than is being thought of here. The human body is a joke of tiny points which are the immediate end, and what is not dangerous to be hit strangely protected. Oddly, from what I read, what Sutil did was not so actually dangerous. But the lack of control demeans every thought I can apply to this. Is that the advert we make for this sport?
Actually, is this a VJM joke as a FU farewell?
My info only comes from school friends who became surgeons, and others who were real special forces. Sutil was likely allowed to pass, only because he did not have such knowledge. Foreknowledge of a offence is a very serious arbiter of the seriousness of a crime. That is also exactly why I do not condemn him. But had he known, had he been in uniform, for example, had he been trained, he would not have had his freedom, nor remember it when he got out.
love it joe. These were my thoughts when I read the articles this morning. but as usual you have the background facts to confirm the hunch. this is why I read this blog.
Joe
This law is only valid when you need a visa for Canada.
He doesnt need one.And I assume with all other countries it is the same.
His sentence is suspended and his conviction needs to be logged correctly
at point of entry.What should not be so difficult as his conviction is reported
all other the place in all sorts of media
It does not matter whether the sentence is suspended or not.
Under Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), if you have committed or been convicted of a crime, you may not be allowed to enter Canada. In other words, you may be “criminally inadmissible.” This includes both minor and serious crimes, such as theft, assault, manslaughter, dangerous driving and driving while under the influence of drugs or alcohol. For a list of criminal offences in Canada, consult the Canadian Criminal Code.
Where does it say visa?
One point, his conviction hasn’t been suspended, overturned or in any way invalidated, it was his sentence that was supended. That means that he is a convicted criminal wether or not he serves any jail time.
by the way, my reply way to goenzoy’s comment, not joe’s. Not sure why it apeares that way.
nobody’s fault – comments appearing in funny ways – just a complete hash of a knackered system above a purported data base, neither of which do what they ever claimed.
Now, when I can slag off my commercial bank for being wrong on the overnights, that is a problem. Ohh, just did that. Ahh, well . . .
Appears correctly (as a reply to goenzoy) here.
It’s often the case that there are – effectively – two sets of laws, one for the regular person and one for those with expensive lawyers.
Such special treatment is common in even the most free of nations, Canada being no exception. If Sutil’s lawyers say he’ll have no problem entering Canada, they’re probably right.
There was no mention of lawyers.
Under the ESTA Visa Waiver scheme he would have to pre-apply and answer the questions online. If he got past that stage, he should be OK, but US Immigration could still refuse him entry on the day of arrival.
Yeah, that is really not much use…
No one has yet answered why a professional driver in Formula One would attack a team principal in a bar, using broken glass.
That is not the point. The point is that he did.
The circumstances may not matter to an immigration officer, but those of us in the cheap seats wonder why an F1 team would take him back. Except of course, if they needed money and a points-scoring driver to replace the Hulk.
The contents of the glass may have been involved.
No. the glass was involved. I have see Eric Lux’s neck. It did not just get a champagne wash.
I think Gridlock means that Sutil may have been drunk at the time. Which may partly explain, but never justify such behaviour.
I have been drunk on occasion but somehow I never managed to stab anyone on the neck with a broken glass. Am I doing it wrong, or am I simply civilised?
I think Gridlock is referring to the alcohol part of the contents.
If I drive while drunk and hurt comeone in the process does that make me more or less resposnsible for my actions and their consecuences?
>No one has yet answered why a professional driver in Formula One would attack a team principal in a bar, using broken glass.
Er, pretty obvious, IMO. Because he’s a @!&!.
We’ve all solved bigger mysteries than this over our cornflakes.
Have you ever met Eric Lux?
Joe why so reticent on Senna’s chances??
Because I don’t know.
Joe, any idea if Eric Lux would be able to / would elect to send lawyers to represent him at the hearing?
What hearing?
Any hearing in country to determine whether Sutil would be allowed to enter. Riffing on what’s been said already about how the rules might move a bit if your pockets are deep enough and your lawyers expensive enough.
What if someone with much deeper pockets than Adrian decides that he has an interest in moving the rules back the other way? Just my hypothetical.
I don’t honestly know what to think about this one, what he did pretty strong even though he said it was accidental. Unfortunately Lewis Hamilton refrained (or was restrained) from giving evidence to support Sutil so perhaps we’ll never know. Other evidence to support Sutil around?
I would just like to note that Senna, in the end, admitted deliberately driving Prost off the road in Japan years ago – he could have killed him. What’s the moral view on that from everybody?
There is video evidence of what happened. And the judge made particular reference to the angle at which the glass hit the neck. It was clearly not an accident. Judges do this stuff. Accept what they say, rather than beliueving some bloke who is capable of doing this stuff.
I do, that’s fair enough. Any thoughts on the Senna incident though Joe – and that was premeditated wasn’t it?
What Senna incident?
Japan GP 1990 – Senna shunted-off Prost at 130mph or thereabouts as revenge for the year before.
Sorry, but what has this got to do with Sutil?
Firstly, I now go along with your view – he found guilty, so end of story. But (there’s always a but) I thought Sutil was otherwise a rather cultivated guy – he always came across well on TV and I haven’t heard anything otherwise controversial about him. Were you surprised at this incident (which doesn’t appear to have been premeditated) – after all you knew him better than us? Judging people by the company they keep Lewis Hamilton seemed happy enough to be best mates until warned-off by his ‘people’ after the incident – LH’s father offered his moral support apparently.
Re my Senna comment, and without of course trying to compare the situations directly, Senna admitted that he deliberately shunted-off Prost at 130mph, a premeditated act. He got off without a sanction at all whereas these days he would probably have been banned for life. People sometimes do things without always being aware of the consequences – Sutil has paid a price for his actions, Senna didn’t.
I take it the video has never emerged publicly?
Odd? In most jurisdictions, a video entered as evidence in an open criminal court proceeding would eventually be released to the press.
Minister Kenney’s office handles these types of requests all the time. Anyone requesting entrance to Canada that does not meet the current standard of at least five years since conviction of crimes (without re-offending) that impose a sentence of ten years or less – must apply for a special ‘Ministers Permit’ ahead of time. Generally the standards for ‘celebrities’ is lower then for the average tourist (like it not – it’s factual) but they must demonstrate that; ‘you lead a stable life and that you are unlikely to be involved in any further criminal activity’. It is also not uncommon that letters are produced by organizations that have ‘invited’ these people to visit Canada for business meetings, sporting events (as a participant) and music concerts (also as participants) and other events deemed to be in the public interest. That the Grand Prix Du Canada would produce a letter for inclusion in Sutil’s application to the Ministers office could almost be guaranteed, along with some support from other groups such as ASN Canada and the FIA. There would have to be some supporting evidence produced that would counter the view that this persons entry into Canada is either not in our interests or he is a danger to our citizens safety. I don’t believe this driver would meet that criteria. I’m not defending what he did – just letting people know that immigration policy sometimes has moving goal posts when it comes to celebrities such as members of rock bands, actors attending film festivals and perhaps GP drivers. Of course this can come back at you negatively depending on if your the ‘Dog the Bounty Hunter’ TV reality star types…
“It is nice to see that Adrian Sutil is pitching hard for a Force India drive in 2013.”
It seems like “nice” is not really the word you are looking for.
I wonder what is the beef you have with Sutil. You keep pointing out the difficulties all the time as if the man is a dangerous criminal who is likely to attack people in the paddock. He says his management has checked with all countries for access and that there is no problem. So why do you have to bring it up again and again?
People can get sentenced by a court simply because their side of the story is not heard due to lack of witnesses. We know that Sutil was very disappointed because Hamilton who was apparently witness refused to testify.
Why don’t you give the man a break? Is it because he is involved with Force India and you love to bring up all kind of negatives about that team?
Because normal people do not do this stuff. Maybe you do, who knows?
That is quite lame and punching under the belt as well.
As opposed to in the neck?
Indeed!
“People can get sentenced by a court simply because their side of the story is not heard due to lack of witnesses.”
That’s why I’m glad I live in a country without jury trials.
Look up summary justice in the English system. They can only hand down 6 months, though. A sensible limit.
So there is trial and Jury, and many systems, but none perfect. Guilty men walk, etc.
Poor excuses for attorneys charge 500 bucks a hour (that’s low end) and have never once had a single viable angle in court.
That is why I am sometimes allowed to have audience in a court, as a normal man. It does depend, and I never want to be there, but I am allowed when who *thinks* they are in charge, permit me because I will neither bore them, nor spoil the rules, nor bring a crappy case, nor offend, nor waste time, nor waffle.
(of course, nobody here reading regular will believe me I know how not to waffle!)
This really has only happened a handful of times. Once it was just a procedural thing, and I walked in, to ask, and was treated as if counsel. So, I stayed there. Darrow is who all refer to as to trials, definitely a real thinker. (I cheat, but the movie reference is a steal, and there are so many others, in US and E+W law) He’s who the subject of upper movie reference. But we should all be like this, be involved, walk up and speak up.
I genuinely do not think law hard. It has some elements of principle, and yet everyone thinks it hides in petty details that suit rich men. Rubbish. Its entire function is to negate such imbalances. Most Judges or Justices have that in their bones.
Civil Court, however, is a funnier place. You get unsavoury people duking it out over less savoury issues, with barely a leg between them. Go look why the only LJ quit in disgust? Now there is where people misconstrue so easily, where to be honest you can BS for your Country, and do well speaking the wrong language.
Anyhow, Adrian was not in a civil court. It would please me greatly if he turned out innocent on appeal. But he’s in a muck, and had better accept that. Not accepting that will cost him more time of life than he will ever manage to accept, later. However, if he really is innocent, ignoring it will unmake that man, and that will be a terrible shame, not of F1, but of life.
Is Adrian still appealing?
No I don’t think so.
Certainly Joe is forthright on his opinions of Sutil, but to be fair he was very even handed and neutral in his writings prior to the conviction.
People need to leave Lewis Hamilton alone about this Sutil trial. Think about it: there was video evidence showing that Sutil *did* stab Lux with a broken glass. Hamilton was right there, he would have seen it. So what’s he supposed to do? Go to the trial and lie on the stand? He did Sutil the best favour he could by sending a carefully-worded written statement and staying away from the trial.
All in, how many Grands Prix would this be a significant and potential problem for? Must be at least a few.
Three or four
There seems to be ongoing misunderstanding of the US Visa programme, not just in this discussion.
They are simply very careful, and one strike and you’re out.
Out from what is one of the easiest automatic visas that exist.
Boo hoo.
You loose any privilege for being arrested, not even charged.
May I please advise anyone who has any concerns as to this to simply go talk to the local Consulate. They are very reasonable. It may take time, and you may not want to remember (I was a tearaway teen once, it is not always nice to go back in time) but they are simply trying to do a good job. Job being, keep away the real idiots.
I doubt anyone here, or even their relatives, would have serious difficulty gaining a Visa. But, it may take time, and money, and well, my only word on this is simple: Talk and ye shall be known. Make yourself known. Hide nothing (because I assure you even privately it is amazing what a few dollars will get on you, yes, you, here, on the interweb thing) and above all be yourself.
My late biz partner managed someone who despite being a favourite of a major US Symphony, needed State Dept, clearance, to visit. Conscientious objector. That was a tricky one, because of the various acts drawn up during the last WW.
If you have ever had a snarl up in your life, you will be scrutinised. Heavily. Experts such as Bruce Schneier argue that misdirects energy, effort, and attention. But this is about you. Make your name good. That always feels better.
~ j
Joe – appeals were launched against the Sutil verdict by both the prosecution and the defense back in February. I can’t see information anywhere what be came of these – do you know?
I don’t think they were pursued.
Sutil decided in March not pursue the appeal, which led to the prosecution doing the same.
It’s pretty obvious you have an anti-Sutil agenda.
No, I believe in law and civilization. You get what you deserve. I am simply pointing out things that could come into play. If you think it is gone to do what Sutil did then good for you, but I don’t want to know you.
That is unfair. There are plenty of other F1 drivers who have been in fights. Ayrton Senna himself had once fought Eddie Irwine on track. Call it what you will, but this too falls under the category of attempting grievous bodily harm. Are you saying Senna is unlawful and uncivilized and didn’t deserve to be in F1 too?
This is just one example. Lots of other drivers have committed bigger crimes..
Tosh. None of the other things you mentioned are in any way comparable to what Sutil did.
Rubbish. Look back. Sutil was given good press here. Just not maybe “fanboy” press.
F1 doesn’t need this headache!
Simple, do the crime, do the time.
No one is above the law, look at American football player, Michael Vick and his dog fighting crimes, 21 months in jail. He later continued his football career.
Adrian, pay your dues, no one is immune, if you are the real deal, you can prove it later. If not, too bad. You did it to yourself like Vick did.
Sutil was sentenced harshly because the judge considered him a role model, who should have known better than to get into a bar fight, not because she thought that he tried to seriously harm or even kill Eric Lux. The sentence simply means that he caused bodily harm with a dangerous object (the broken champagne glass), it doesn’t say anything about his intentions or whether or not what happened was an accident.
While getting in a bar fight probably isn’t a good idea if one is dependent on the goodwill of sponsors and immigration officials, these things can happen, even if they shouldn’t . Eric Lux is no angel and F1 has seen worse people than Adrian Sutil. I find the bigotted reactions in this blog ridiculous. He paid a hefty fine of 200.000 Euros and he received a suspended jail sentence, isn’t that enough? Why do you guys find satisfaction in the fact that at the age of 30, he is looking at the shambles of his career?
We all have different opinions. Some people consider it acceptable to stick glasses into the necks of others, some people do not. This is not about bigotry, it is about civilisation. If you prefer the barbarian lifestyle then that is your choice, but don’t come here lecturing and abusing.
If nothing else it suggests sutil is a reckless human being. No matter whether he was provoked or not, cutting someone’s throat is a violent act. Yes race drivers need a certain level of risk taking beyond normal limits but a driver who’d do that must clearly be a liability. Even leaving aside all moral and legal concerns (not that hard for F1 I suppose) you’d think a team would want to avoid a driver who’s known to have lost it completely on at least one occasion.
I think sutil was a solid driver and he had speed, but it’s not like there’s zero other options is it?
So thinking that Sutil should not necessarily be punished beyond the fine and the suspended jail sentence means that one prefers “the barbarian lifestyle”? Wow.
I think it is very strange.
Hope Bruno gets the seat and not Sutil.
vitaly,
no mate, that was a very very light sentence.
to have it suspended was amazing. I expected at least some prison time. At least token. In fact it would be better to do the time and be forgiven by society, but that is not how things work.
(never underestimate how influential a sport may be to not have actual convicts in their press, or just how inconsistent supposedly educated judges can be)
In the UK, that could easily have been pushed high in the books, Crown, if not High Court, and I note that Crown, the lower court also has the power to sentence people indefinitely (forever, beyond “real life”, look up “IPP”). Actually, there’s not much sentencing power difference between the two, at this level, which is pretty darned heavy anyhow. You only go higher if the arguments are better dealt with there.
I have known of guys go down for 3 to 5 for less.
So this is “harsh”? Really?
Knowing who defended those guys, local cases I read, they were well represented. One just had a knife in his pocket. Two years. Just done, minimum. Had to be done, it was the minimum.
Now, in our system. we might get a bit pissed off, at improvising a weapon.
Looking at my 2003 and so very old reference, much has changed since and not any easier for a defendant.
“Having article with blade or point in a public place”
it is about the accused having knowledge of his ability to misuse the article in his possession.
and we go on, with e,g, “forgetfulness does not constitute this defence [ distinguishability of a weapon versus a other object ]
and so on and so on, and if anything the terms are harder now since CA 06/
I just have the boring old Blackstone’s ref CP03. (06 is a specialist subject, vast new statutes, and so radically changed law better to set with the earlier)
Basically, I think, had Sutil been in London, a regular bloke, he’s have spent 2 years min in jail. Without blinking. He’d not have gotten trial before then. Might have done much more. He’s be still waiting to be heard.
– - okay guys, sorry, bit het up, maybe I should have been a public defender by profession. Well, no my mate is a defender and thinks I am a natural prosecutor. Guess, maybe I should have been in law. If you think that crazy, I have been as a child taken to civil cases where every aspect was argued, and as a adult, gallery criminal cases, when people’s live were being toyed with, neither side even mentioned the law. Nor were the judges actually trained.
– - But as for Sutil, he is one lucky boy. If you do not believe me, get a word out from our local courts, if you are similarly charged, whilst you freeze your nuts off there in the dungeons, because if I am reached, I am usually given rights of audience.
If Sutil just said Force India “should talk to him” now, in mid December, it means it’s already too late. He will not drive a Force India next year.
If, whilst working for my company, I stabbed a man in the neck with a broken shard of a glass (having I assume deliberately broken it first, though that is purely speculation) I would have been, fired, arrested, charged, tried, found guilty, put in prison, and once I had been rehabilitated, I would have had 0 chance of getting my job back. As, simply put, my company would say that they don’t want a violent criminal representing them.
Sutil should have been made to serve at least part of his sentence, and I hope he never gets near an F1 car again
+1
Yup, this ^ above.
I have never seen a report of the evidence given at the trial. Did Sutil deliberately break the glass before using it to stab Eric Lux; or was his intention to throw the contents over Lux, but the glass unintentionally hit Lux, broke and caused the injury? I would view the former as very serious, whilst the latter is more stupidity, for which he paid the price.
All the details are in German. Sutil argued the latter case, the court did not believe him.
Boils down to mens rea vs mens actis. Court believed he had mens rea, therefore culpability.
Sutil’s arguments must have made some impression considering that the jail sentence was suspended. I don’t know what a normal verdict in this sort of case is in Germany, but I guess it involves doing time.
Joe, you are right about Sutil. He is reaping what he sawn. Period.
But, is there a possibilty to ask you about Lux?
What did Lux do to provoke such reaction from Sutil? There seems to be a taboo around that question. Why?
Also, when you google Lux, you get a picture of a Very Shadowy entrepreneur at best .
My perception of Sutil is that of a normal, intelligent, sensitive, slightly hotheaded young man. I can’t figure that he would do a thing like that as a reaction to a ordinary nasty joke.
Whatever Lux did or did not do does not merit a broken glass in the neck.
“Whatever Lux did or did not do does not merit a broken glass in the neck.”
Seriously? There are lot things people do or say to others that merit more than a broken glass in the neck! Sutil is no saint. Noone is.
Not in the world I live in.
I heard that Sutil was defending himself and was physically (rather than verbally) provoked or attacked and that the video clearly showed this.
Has anyone actually seen the video and can unequivocally say that wasn’t the case and that Sutil just decided to lash out?
Yes, the court has.
Anybody know what Eric did to provoke the attack by Adrian?
Does it matter?
It does, if Lux was being considerably violent towards him then flicking a champagne glass at someone might of been an instinctive reaction and not planned reaction to the threat.
I do not know the exact situation (neither do most of us) and can only conclude from the result in court that Adrians action was disproportionate to the situation which is why he has been prosecuted.
Violence and Sex can be strange bedfellows…
Humans either get the “horns of rage” or the “raging horn!”
Perhaps there’s some benefit in setting up F1 Anger Management Classes,
headed up by Joe Pesci, (an actor famous for playing characters of a certain mental state)
Absolutely it matters.
It’s also very odd that the video hasn’t been publicly released. We are all operating under a great deal of assumption that is very odd for a public criminal case. Why are the details being so closely held? Transparency is the hallmark of justice, secrecy is more generally the hallmark of a coverup.
If it’s true that Lux initiated the physical altercation, it completely changes my perspective of this mess, I suspect it would change the perspective of many others.
Pushing back at somewhere who pushed one of us in a bar after we’d had a few too many? It’s happened to most of the folks I know. I even know a few who’ve been inadvertently cut in bars from glass. No, not “glassed”, but seriously cut, accidentally cut. It happens.
Did that happen here? Well, the secrecy surrounding this case certainly leaves that open as a plausible option.
Adam Cooper claims to have seen the CCTV footage and had this to say about it: “#F1 Still gobsmacked by the Sutil decision given that CCTV showed the other guy attacked first and Adrian just tried to push him away “
Not saying it justifies Sutil stabbing Lux, but it does put things into a (slightly) different context.
The judge was unimpressed by the angle at which the glass was used. It is a little more technical.
So, Two guys meet at a bar. One guy provokes and shoves the other. The other guy defends himself with his champagne glass, but didn’t have time to hold it at an angle which won’t hurt his opponent. So, the 2nd guy is guilty?
Kinda 1 sided..
Sorry, but I cannot believe that you think it is acceptable to shove a broken glass into someone’s neck.
Agreed: he should have put the glas away before continuing the argument – period.
Defends himself with a champagne glass – as opposed to a fist, which would more often than not do nothing other than leave a nasty bruse or black eye?
If the evidence is that good, Adrian should appeal all the way. And I mean that, I’d be on his side if he has a case to take it higher. I look past the surface, because I have watched big, truly decent, men break down because their jobs were to kill for the army. But if he has a chance on appeal, he should take it.
There is a truism: double jeopardy is because you are first tried by your counsel.
Often counsel is not of help.
I have had the “fun” of getting instructions overnight to someone I knew would be good. Otherwise a guy would have taken 5 for having a cartridge in his pocket, after a job beating for a game shoot. 90% of my job was getting the guy to calm the f down so anyone serious would give a whit for him. 5 years is the min for carrying ammo in the UK.
Had he had nobody working the phones and faxes, that’d have been committal to trial, not dismissed as the accident it was. (From Magistrates to Crown where you can be handed a real sentence) Oh, and to boot, I didn’t find out until later he’d been dishonourably discharged, so really was facing it. (Honourable Vets are allowed quite a bit of leeway in courts, here, and I think that fair) Total rascal, actually, turned out. Almost regretted helping. But it was a stupidity, not a crime, and still law demands harsh sentences unless a Judge thinks better.
Point being, do not scar your name. Once blunted in any fashion, people move in, you are done, you will stop to enjoy the company you find who tolerates you. You may even do yourself in, with imaginary shame, invented contrition, and I have seen self hatred result from failing to appeal what is, after all, often just one summary opinion.
This may seem a bit tenuous, but read how Conrad Black beat the rap he was given, and especially about the demented defence attorneys he had, prior to appeal. I almost think he chose such idiots so he could get appeal, procedurally, because in higher courts, there tends to exist a little more brainpower.
I several times came close to founding a firm with my attorney friend, when the law changed, to allow lay people to be partners. But it was the defender / prosecutor argument that ditched me. Which I find strange, because I have only ever helped defence. Think I am just a bit aggressive for my gentle and cerebral friend.
As a child, I memorized every line of Inherit The Wind:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0053946/
and this:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050083/
Twelve Angry Men.
There was also a series on the beeb called “Crown Court” when I was little, and my father tried to stop me watching it as the closing title theme would make me cry.
and my dad beat the Crown once, enough they had to change a law.
My prep school was almost a Borstal, where they accepted who was thrown from wherever, being in need of state funds for taking the kids. So the Forces were a pretty popular option as a way out, though I have met none of those since. My dad, thinking it was a regular school, cottoned on, stormed in one day, to the Head Master. No appointment, he was rather good at barging in. (and he barged in to much more interesting offices…) Poor guy was rushed to hospital, after. Heart attack scare. That was how scary my dad could be! But I was incredibly happy there, complete absence of BS. Run de facto by a amazing man I still am fortunate to be able to speak to.
My escape from all this was seeing F1 on the telly.
It had all the reality, all the elements of life, and was not trivial, and was not uncaring. But it delivered real argument, in a higher form.
Maybe you can understand now why Adrian’s case upsets me.
I am not unsympathetic. But I want only good reality.
That’s interesting bit in this story. Why shield Lux’s actions from scrutiny?
He’s F1 team owner.
With Sutil things are clear, nothing to discuss really.
But ok, it’s Joe’s blog, Joe’s rules, so i’ll just drop this now with the end of this post.
No-one is shielding Lux. He did not do anything wrong, at least not under the law.
Firstly – long time reader, first time poster.
I apologise if this has already been touched upon, but I’m curious as to the FIA stance on allowing Sutil to race again. Do they not have some professional code of conduct or a stipulation in the super licence regards criminal convictions that would prevent him driving?
I hope that’s irony, Tom, as HMP = Her Majesty’s Pleasure. Which was the first form of indefinite incarceration. It would be written on a man’s cell door.
Strange to see so many people saying that Sutil should get the FI drive. F1 is a tough business, and being an F1 driver is an extremely priviliged position to hold. Any young man (or woman) hoping to be get into (or back into) F1 has to do everything possible to make themselves attractive to the teams, and this includes keeping your nose clean and not getting into trouble with the police. Adrian was convicted in a court of law in a free and fair country of a very serious offence, and was very lucky to not spend any time in jail. The loss of his F1 career should be seen as a minor price to pay compared to the loss of his freedom.
A conviction such as this would prevent a taxi driver in the UK from renewing his licence, do we need to feel sorry for Adrian? He is a good driver but not great, there are many more deserving drivers out there of the same talent level that would be a better bet for Force India because of the lack of negative press that they bring as they don’t have a criminal record.
Sutil will have a great life despite his conviction, I don’t see why he should re take the exalted position of Formula One driver.
Maybe they should give the drive to Liuzzi!
I suspect that if Adrian didn’t have access to a lot of sponsorship money we wouldn’t even be having this discussion. He’d be better off looking at something like sportscars or Indy – assuming he can get a US Visa, or even WTCC. Something where he can get paid and enjoy racing.
Out of interest, what happened to Bertrand Gachot after he got done for assaulting a London cabbie?
Oh, and another thought, most sports have rules preventing participants bringing ‘the game’ in to disrepute. I wonder if Adrian has checked whether the FIA would let him race in F1?
Interesting question about Gachot who, of course, actually served time in the UK for (I presume) assault.
He went on to continue racing, albeit not for Jordan, and raced in Australia, USA and Canada.
Perhaps the laws have changed since ’92/’93 but this does show precedent, regardless of what one may think is right or wrong.
Kovalainen wouldn’t be a bad choice for Force India. Fast, experienced and surely well up for a season in a car capable of scoring good results. Bet they could sign him up for peanuts, too, given that Caterham don’t seem so keen on retaining him…
I am perhaps a soft hearted liberal, but I do believe that people can make a mistake and learn from it. That their whole lives should not be ruined because of an error of judgement.
If what had happened here was that Sutil punched his foe on the nose and in some unfortunate unforseen turn Lux had fallen onto a glass on a nearby table I would absolutely be calling for people to be understanding.
I realise I am absent all the facts so I may have a misreading of the situation, but it would appear to be that Sutil intentionally drove glass into the body of another. That sounds to me like much more than a misjudgement; it sounds like a deep-seated character flaw – a viciousness that is instinctive and I feel less compelled to suggest someone can switch that off having now learnt a lession.
Perhaps I am being unfair in my use of pop-psychology, but that’s my opinion. I wouldn’t trust him in my vicinity in a tense situation.
Just how did this “deep-seated character flaw” and instinctive viciousness manifest itself prior to the incident in China?
I don’t know. Do you?
Perhaps he had never been in a confrontation before. Perhaps there were several other incidents. Perhaps I am way off base.
I reiterate my caveat “I am absent the facts” and am commenting based purely on the reports.
My point is that it takes a certain type of mentality to stab someone. A court of law found that he had done just that.
“I don’t know.” “Perhaps am way off base.”
Well, that sums it up nicely.
Sorry, the second quote should be: “Perhaps I am way off base.”
Athletes of every type and description come into Canada regardless of a list of serious criminal convictions – which seems to be not out of the norm for American football, baseball and even yes, hockey players. I doubt Sutil will have any immigration problems.
It’s hard to imagine a normal person actually doing what the judge has convicted him of. Is this surveillance video available anywhere? I would love to have heard what was possibly discussed at their table or seen what occurred prior to the incident for Sutil to get that unglued.
So what is the point in having laws?
A very general question, Joe, but in this specific case you should ask the Canadian lawmakers.
When he is announced as a Force India driver I may do that. In the meantime I have more important things to do with my time.
I suspect that all laws have exceptions, except odd things like mandatory minimum sentencing, and there is actually guidance on the Canadian Immigration website covering what an individual needs to do to to gain entry if they are, at face value, inadmissable due to criminal convictions.
Whether any of us or, indeed, the Canadian government think it should apply in this case is a different question, of course…
Sporting competitors are fairly easy to mind and spot, when they travel. So not much bother to immigration officials.
Also the whole point is many had nothing else they could do well. Not because of lack of brains, rather lack of chances, and but because many kinds of sport are simply cheap to enact. Footy probably the cheapest. But if you have no Squash court, you can play that in your head. Or play Fives. I have done, for practise. Or against a wall. It only takes imagination.
Boxers definitely come to mind, as who may have had a rough start. My dad could box. (Rough start) Good skill to learn, not many have laid one on me, and a admittedly aged pro (that means a bit older than me!) tried the other week, to impress a girl . . pretty laughable . . no, not is not reach or anything, he’s fly weight or abouts, I learned a fair bit, actually, fair cop to the guy. Though he was not playing Queens, moment he saw I could move! Guess my dad really mucked with my head, because I never forgot a thing, after 30 years. Tall = slow muscles, I had to work at it. He made sure I did. (and no, my name is not Sue!)
Sport in general is a potential catharsis from life, wherein a person may get a second chance, every now and then, wherein we all may find refuge and even solace.
Since F1 is a sport, in my view, I make no distinctions. You may be poor to only kick a football about, but bet your family is poor trying to get you into F1!
It’s in that spirit, that it would be good to have Sutil back, but I think he needs to work on his legal game, first.
It takes nothing much for a man to speak out, and say they are sorry, except and unless they are either innocent or self fooled. Let’s hear it, from him.
I do not want Adrian back if he is going to hide behind PR bods, or trick himself, or accuse a process of being unfair when he could have made it through.
Surely I am not the only one who wants their sporting heroes to act like one?
Saying this, because if he is brought back, I think he owes one to his fans, and to his sport, and most definitely to himself.
the man who caught Sutil.
While my personal thought is that I would not hire Sutil, no one including Joe, in the 135 or so commenters was there. Sutil was convicted and sentenced and apparently paid his fine and has held to the conditions of his sentence.
Formula 1 teams don’t necessarily hire the best drivers when some bring enough resources (money) with them. Sutil seemed to be a good driver when he was in the sport. If no team feels they would hire him, then no one should be concerned, if someone does, then the fact that legally there is nothing preventing them from doing so, then so what.
I find his act, not having been there, pretty repugnant. And, like Joe, there have been occasions when I was under the influence and didn’t stab anyone in the neck or anywhere else for that matter.
It’s interesting that, as a few mentioned, one or two drivers have used there 800 horsepower machines traveling at significant speeds to force others off the track – i suppose that’s ok. Grevious actions have a degree of greviousness or do they?
The seriousness of the act is dependent in the outcome, isn’t it?
I think it depends on whether or not the action was premeditated – there, I rest my case m’lud. I’ve read too many perfect people write on this subject – there but for the grace of God etc.
Please see this definition:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea
It is by nature a complex defence. Sadly, based even on how people have reacted in this comment section, I estimate a trial by jury of Rea vs. Actis is unlikely to ever succeed for the defence. It’s actually one defence that about no defender ever wants to use. Because just so hard to argue. Darrow is your go to man, on Juries, in particular, Jury selection.
Here’s your man: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Darrow
The concept of premeditation does not work very well in the situation I have been aware of, as to Sutil. So, I think the above is what you are thinking of.
What I think sad, however, is that many Judges seem to have embedded in their minds, the idea that perps are by default not of their own mind, and give far too much leeway. But that is a Daily Fail debate, and not for here. Nonetheless, the concepts are interesting, and if you are self aware, you may wonder and discover something even of your own, non criminal, actions.
Duh, actus, not actis.
I was in fact referring to, in part, Robert Passman’s final sentence as well as the Sutil incident, although I now realise it’s not clear.
Regarding Sutil – he was convicted of the crime so end of story as they say. I agree – the concept of premeditation does not work very well in this situation so I find it curious how ready some people are ‘to put on the black cap’ without any real understanding of the facts nor taking into account (one assumes) previous good character. I’ve yet to hear anything on the former, even from Joe.
Joe’s comment – “the seriousness of the act is dependent in the outcome, isn’t it?” I cannot disagree more with. That’s a new legal definition of a criminal act I’ve never heard of! Try ‘malice aforethought’ instead then it gets interesting. There are racing incidents and there are racing incidents. I’ve previously illustrated the example of Senna, Japanese GP 1990. He later confessed to deliberately driving Prost off the road, for which the FIA did – nothing. Not even a ban. Had Senna killed Prost we might be taking a different view on his career.
Merry Christmas!