24 January 2025 , 13:56
465
0
Joey Barton has appeared in court to respond to charges of assaulting his wife Georgia, after the High Court overturned an earlier decision to throw the case out
Joey Barton arrived at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on Friday to respond to charges of assaulting his wife Georgia.
The court heard Barton allegedly shoved his wife to the floor and kicked her in the head in a drunken row while their children slept upstairs. It was told the former footballer also allegedly threatened to fight his wife’s brother and father in a "verbal disagreement about a family matter". Barton then, it is claimed, "grabbed [Georgia] and pushed her to the ground and kicked her in the head".
As a friend tried to intervene, Barton "threw" him off and said "don’t disrespect me", the trial heard. Georgia, who was left with a lump on her forehead and a bleeding nose, called police shortly after 11pm to "report she had been hit by her husband". During a tearful 999 call played to the court, she said: "Me husband’s just hit me in the house. He’s in the house, I’m outside."
Asked if anything similar had happened before, she said: "No, it’s the first time," adding that she had been hit "in the face". When police arrived at around 11:30pm, Georgia told them: "I’ve been pushed down and kicked about and stuff. He said he was going to fight with my brother and my dad."
The former Bristol Rovers manager denies leaving his wife with a golf ball-sized lump on her head after drinking four bottles of wine. After calling the police, Mrs Barton later told prosecutors she did not support the case involving the alleged assault at their West London home, two days before their anniversary in June 2021.
However, after a judge threw the case out, the High Court overturned the ruling, saying it “was wrong in principle”. Barton has always denied the allegations and was due to face trial at a magistrates’ court in 2022.
But the case was adjourned after Mrs Barton sent a letter to prosecutors retracting her allegations. A judge then ordered that proceedings be paused over concerns a trial would be unfair to Mr Barton after prosecutors said they did not plan to ask Mrs Barton to give evidence in court.
The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Stephen Parkinson, appealed against the decision at the High Court in London, with barristers claiming at a hearing in May that a fair trial could go ahead. In a judgment, two senior judges ruled in the DPP’s favour and said Mr Barton should face a trial over the allegations in front of a different judge.
In a 20-page ruling, Dame Victoria Sharp said the previous judge’s decision “was wrong in principle”. Mr Barton was accused of grabbing his wife by the throat and kicking her in the head during a row outside their home in Kew, south-west London, where they had been with two other couples in June 2021.
He denied a charge of assault by beating after he was arrested by police at his home, with Mrs Barton said to have been left with a golf ball-sized bruise on her forehead and a bleeding nose.
But Wimbledon Magistrates’ Court heard in March 2022 that Mrs Barton wrote to prosecutors a month before the scheduled trial to claim she was injured accidentally when friends intervened in an argument between the pair, having both drunk “four or five bottles of wine”.
Mrs Barton did not support the prosecution and was not due to be called as a prosecution witness during the trial over fears she would give an untruthful account of events.
Lawyers for Mr Barton said this would leave him at a disadvantage as it meant she could not be questioned over inconsistencies in her evidence. But Dame Victoria said the prosecution is only obliged to call witnesses who have provided witness statements they plan to rely on and it was not “an abuse of process” to not call Mrs Barton.
She continued: “In the circumstances of this case, it would have been proper for the defence to have called Mrs Barton, and for the prosecution to have cross-examined her.” The judge, sitting with Mr Justice Saini, added that Mrs Barton had never provided a witness statement and had also “expressed an unwillingness from the outset to give evidence against her husband”.
Dame Victoria concluded: “No prejudice could conceivably have been caused to Mr Barton if Mrs Barton had been called by the defence, or by the court for that matter."