Binge drinking rugby player bit man on nose
A BINGE-DRINKING rugby player who bit a man on the nose outside a Cheltenham club, scarring him for life, has escaped serving a prison sentence.
Joel Bond, 24, who plays flanker for Tewkesbury RFC, was told by the judge at Gloucester Crown Court that his attack on Gareth Ruck was "grotesque".
Building labourer Bond, of Perry Hill, Priors Park, Tewkesbury, admitted common assault on Mr Ruck followed by assault causing him actual bodily harm on December 21.
He had been out celebrating his birthday with friends in Cheltenham when he attacked Mr Ruck outside the Dakota club in Bath Road, the court heard.
He sank his teeth into Mr Ruck's nose and maintained the grip for a "lengthy time", said Susan Cavender, prosecuting.
She said Mr Ruck spent a night in hospital and suffered an infection to the injury. He spent some time worrying that he might contract hepatitis.
Recorder Stephen Hall QC sentenced Bond to 12 months in jail, suspended for two years, with 15 months' supervision and a condition to attend 15 sessions of a low-intensity alcohol treatment programme.
Bond was also ordered to pay £750 compensation to his victim and another £750 in costs.
Sentencing him, the recorder said: "What you did that night when you were hopelessly drunk was conduct and behaviour which was totally unacceptable. Grotesquely, you bit the victim's nose, such that he now suffers scarring. The fact you were so drunk you can't remember is no excuse at all."
The recorder said it was only because Mr Ruck had "provoked the tussle" that Bond was saved from immediate imprisonment.
"You seem to think it is perfectly in order to go binge drinking at weekends," he said.
"It is not perfectly in order because you then find yourself in the sort of trouble you are in today."
Mrs Cavender had shown the judge CCTV of the incident.
After an initial scuffle, during which Bond struck Mr Ruck, he walked to a taxi rank.
Mr Ruck followed and Bond then attacked and bit him.
She said the injury to Mr Ruck's nose was "permanent and visible – very distressing for a young man of his age".
Defence barrister David Martin said: "The defendant was clearly provoked by the victim.
"I know the victim had an infection in the wound, but he could easily have picked that up in hospital.
"There was never any question of the defendant infecting him with hepatitis. The worry the victim had was totally unfounded."
Probation officer Sian Worrall told the court that although he did not drink from Sunday to Friday, Bond admitted binge drinking sessions at weekends, consuming at least 10 units of alcohol on a Saturday.
The probation service was concerned at his level of drinking and the disinhibiting effect it had on him, she added.
12 Comments
View all
by LewBrush
Friday, February 10 2012, 9:22AM
“How strange that so many people should feel that Mr.Bond's behaviour was justifiable, barbaric as it was, also that comments in his favour are being heavily approved judging by the ratings. I wonder what his team-mates think of it all, as sadly his behaviour taints rugby too!”
by bazzrain17
Thursday, February 09 2012, 11:51PM
“It sounds to me that you are jumping on the ruck band wagon! I wasn't condoning biting! I simply asked a question would there have been a incident if Mr Bond wasn't provoked? And that could easily lead to would any one of been injured if there wasn't an incident clearly the answer to both these questions is no!!”
by jase321
Thursday, February 09 2012, 8:14PM
“Slow down all you band wagon jumpers! Whilst I can't condone people provoking someone for a fight, when all is said and done a fight between two 'men' as far as I'm concerned is conducted with fists!? If Mr Ruck had sustained a beating by this means then I would have to agree that he would just have to live with it! However when Mr Bond chose to turn cannibalistic and carry out a prolonged bite on Mr Rucks nose then he steps too far away from moral decency and deserves to be dealt with by the courts. So shut up defending a man who stepped too far outside the law and consider how you would have felt had this happened to you or someone you care about.”
by bazzrain17
Thursday, February 09 2012, 5:55PM
“I read this article today and really thought to myself is this headline news!! The journalist who writes this rubbish should be ashamed, clearly journalists have to concentrate on the few negatives that happen with the community and only fuel the negative attitude that echos around the country to get there little kicks. Why not write about something positive thats happening out there.
I dont understand what happened that night between these 2 young lads but 1 clear thing that i gather from this article is the defendant was "provoked", if the defendant wasnt provoked would there have been and incident at all?? Clearly both the defendant and the victim were drunk but would the victim have taken it to court if he was bitten but came off with lesss damage than the defendant, i doubt that he started something he couldnt finish and had his pride muscle dented.
I dont promote binge drinking but everyone has been young and cant deny they have done it at some point in there lives. Maybe the source of these problems should be looked at in preventing shambles of court cases like this and wasting tax payers money in fees in the future.”
by mikey862012
Thursday, February 09 2012, 5:07PM
“I couldn't agree more @bernie987 the so called 'victim' did appear smug. This entire story has made me angry more so the way the Echo has portrayed the entire thing. Poor form.”
by Pants0309
Thursday, February 09 2012, 4:44PM
“I dont understand where the above comments have come from having read this article myself. Surely a victim is a victim and defendants are found guilty for a reason! Having pleaded guilty how can you possibly claim that you are then not responsible? Only drinking on a weekend??? this incident happened on a monday! Mr Ruck is left with a visible scar...how exactly did Mr Bond come off worse out of this encounter! I am just gobsmacked that the courts did not give a custodial sentence...just goes to show how the streets are not safe from people who bite you!”
by sluggy1234
Thursday, February 09 2012, 1:29PM
“This story is typical pangyannging!!! how can the "victim" be the person that starts a fight! if you start a fight and then lose, you should just man up and get along with it!
it does not say the reasons why mr bond has bitten this chap?!
RUCK has started a fight, got hit, so went looking for another fight and got beaten up again?! :/
Like a very wise person commented earlier.....looks like ruck has bitten off more than he can chew!”
by shranecrane
Thursday, February 09 2012, 12:59PM
“it appears this story is about two young men who both wish to engage into a "confrontation" and it appears the injured party is the man who wished to continue in doing so when the accussed walked away... but by doing this and attacking the accussed, mr RUCK recieved what he was looking for... another physical confrontaion which gave the accussed no choice but to defend himself!! its a clear case of... pangyanggg aka dont start something which you cannot finish!! this was a waste of tax payers money by taking it to court in the first place!! i hope that mr RUCK has learnt from his very very silly behaviour.”
by Qwerty05
Thursday, February 09 2012, 12:59PM
“Must admit, when I first read the headline I thought another drunk looking for trouble. I did not realise that the ``victim`` had thrown the first punch.”
by hamster11
Thursday, February 09 2012, 12:51PM
“10 units of alcohol? So he claims 3 pints of Stella may pass his lips on a Saturday. What planet do these magistrates live on? Don't they know what a unit is? I think 30 units would be somehwhere nearer what a binge drinking rugby players would neck.”