As typed, but abandoned

The matter under discussion here today is very important. In fact, in disciplinary terms, it is the second most serious offence. The most serious offence is assault causing actual physical injury with an almost mandatory decision of barring sine die.

This matter concerns the alleged offence of threatening behaviour and assault upon two members.

This is a small club, and all the participants are known to most other club members. So to are most of the facts, in varying degrees of accuracy, relating to this incident. It would be clear if any of the parties were to lie or fabricate evidence. Now, that may let them win the case but they would most certainly lose their reputation as honourable people.

My objective is to bring out the truth whether it is favourable to my case or not.

Let me tell you of how I see Mr. Johnston.

The first time I met him was about 2 1/2 years ago when I came in to join. I was directed to him by one of the bar staff. I introduced myself to him and explained that I wished to join the club. I did not find him a very welcoming person but he helped me by giving me the relevant information. So, my first impression of him was mixed.

I had little to do with him for a good while. I just saw him come into the club and have a quite drink. Then, there was then a series of incidents, in which a member took money from other members, and there were worries about this. I was told that Mr. Johnston was seeking information so I spoke to him about what had happened to me. This time I was very impressed with his handling of the matter. He put me at my ease, he was very sympathetic and assured me that action would be taken. This time my impression was of an intelligent and understanding person.

Another time I had occasion to speak to him was at the recent Tuesday meeting to decide if we should open all day. We spoke for only a minute or two but he showed a good knowledge of the procedures of the club.

I also understand that Mr. Johnston has been a member of the club for a long time and been a committee member for several years.

So, to summarise. My opinion is that Mr. Johnston is an intelligent, knowledgeable and experienced person. In short a sensible person. So how did the alleged assault come about?

On that evening, Mr. Johnston was approached by Mr. Stephens who embarrassed him and tried to provoke him. Although justly angry, he did not rise to the bait. In fact, from where I was sitting I saw him laughing.

I now have to try to explain how the subsequent events may have taken place.

As I have said, Mr. Stephens insulted Mr. Johnston and he had every right to seek justice.

He sat quietly for a few minutes.

There were other committee members present who could have assumed the duties of the duty steward. But, he did not take this course of action. Why?

One of the committee members present was a woman. In the matter of a confrontation of two men, the intercession of a woman could have calmed matters. It is rare for a man to show violence to a woman in this situation. But, he did not take this course. Why?

He could have told the other committee members that he himself was going to assume the duties of duty steward. They may have counselled him not to. But, he did not even do this. Why?

He did not see the duty steward, he did not talk to the other committee members, he did not get the help of the woman, he did not officially assume the office of duty steward. Why?

The absolutely worse action that could be taken would be for Mr. Johnston to, assume the authority of the duty steward, without the agreement of the other committee members, in order to progress his personal action against Mr. Stephens. But, this is exactly what he did! Why.

He did not even start his words with Mr. Stephens by telling him that he had assumed the authority of duty steward. Mr. Stephens had been a publican and would have certainly obeyed the request of a person in authority.

As I have said before Mr. Johnston is an intelligent, knowledgeable and experienced man. He is a sensible man. Yet he took the worst course of action to pursue his reasonable desire to get justice for the insults he had suffered.

Mr. Stephens told me that when he first approached Mr. Johnston he said that he was tired and that he had a bad day. He had just been to see a friend in hospital who was seriously ill and that it had affected him. Despite this Mr. Stephens continued his goading of Mr. Johnston.

I know that many of us would have "blown our top", and perhaps this is what happened. At that time Mr. Johnston was not able to control his emotions. He did not consciously assume the duties of duty steward. He just went like "a bull in a china shop" to get his just revenge. We may sympathise, but that cannot mean that we have to condone serious assaults.

During the incidents he went to the bar staff and told them not to serve Mr. Stephens. This placed the staff in a quandary. They did not know if he had the authority. Later, when I went to the bar, it was obvious that the staff felt under pressure and fearful of the consequences of complying, (or not), with his instructions. This does seem to show that at that point Mr. Johnston appeared to be acting rationally.

When he first approached Mr. Stephens, I did not see any signs of emotional instability. If I had, I would have behaved differently. It was not until about his fourth and then his final last visit to the table that he appeared have "lost it". This is when he grabbed Mr. Stephens's hand, and mine, while we were holding the glass. He was completely out of control. This was evidenced by him being completely oblivious of the committee man who was standing right in front of him trying to help. That man just walked away.

THIS INCIDENT