Ben Stokes
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 Stuk  Top half 15 Aug 18 1.00pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Direwolf
Was there some legal argument about the nature of 'affray' that meant that he could not be found guilty? No, the judge gave them 4 definitions that it had to meet to be so, and if the jury thought 1 or more of the 4 didn't apply they had to find them not guilty.
Optimistic as ever |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
| Stuk Top half 15 Aug 18 1.01pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by SW19 CPFC
Ah right. This makes more sense re. Affray. So potentially if they’d put in the ABH claim earlier it might have been open to a slightly different outcome? Edited by SW19 CPFC (14 Aug 2018 9.55pm) Possibly.
Optimistic as ever |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stuk Top half 15 Aug 18 1.02pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Mapletree
This is the point. I believe the judge indicated that there was every likelihood those charges would have stuck. He was charged with affray. It relies on a logic that had a person of reasonable firmness witnessed the incident they would have been scared for their own safety Bizarre cock up on the charge sheet front I don't know about that, but he was pretty miffed that they tried to add it at the very last minute and rightly refused them.
Optimistic as ever |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stuk Top half 15 Aug 18 1.05pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by derby eagle
It was in the public interest IMO to prosecute given the CCTV footage. It appears that the CPS may have been over ambitious in the level of charge that could possibly have stuck. No one will know if the lesser charge would have been proven. I disagree. Just because it's been in the papers it doesn't mean it's in the public interest to try and prosecute.
Optimistic as ever |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| stuckinbristol In the woodwork. 15 Aug 18 1.57pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by steeleye20
Well they are wrong CF. Stokes drank a combination of vodkas and beers that would have rendered many of us senseless. Can't really comment on this because I don't know Stokes' tolerance to alcohol. Whatever happened he still brutally assaulted 2 people with long term physical damage, it was not self-defence he was not attacked himself. If it was you or I we could expect to be a guest of Her Majesty tonight. To pick him for Saturday while he has still to face disciplinary hearings is quite wrong. He has been found not guilty in a court of law. What the hell do the ECB think they are doing? What are others in particular those coming through to think? What would be justice, is if Stokes were given a dose of his own medicine. What, threaten a bigger boy with a bottle and get a slap? This is not commensurate with the game of cricket IMO As I said above. Not guilty in a court of law!
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
 Cucking Funt Clapham on the Back 15 Aug 18 2.41pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by steeleye20
Well they are wrong CF. Stokes drank a combination of vodkas and beers that would have rendered many of us senseless. Whatever happened he still brutally assaulted 2 people with long term physical damage, it was not self-defence he was not attacked himself. If it was you or I we could expect to be a guest of Her Majesty tonight. To pick him for Saturday while he has still to face disciplinary hearings is quite wrong. What are others in particular those coming through to think? What would be justice, is if Stokes were given a dose of his own medicine. This is not commensurate with the game of cricket IMO The jury sat through the entire trial, heard/saw all the evidence, listened to the case for the prosecution and to the defence. You didn't. End of discussion, really.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| steeleye20 Croydon 15 Aug 18 2.54pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Cucking Funt
The jury sat through the entire trial, heard/saw all the evidence, listened to the case for the prosecution and to the defence. You didn't. End of discussion, really. Yes, and as others have said here the charge of affray is clearly wrong. Assault causing ABH is quite obvious just look at the video footage. Apparently they wanted to belatedly add ABH but were refused, looks like another police cock-up. Not end of discussion this has further to go.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stuk Top half 15 Aug 18 2.59pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by steeleye20
Yes, and as others have said here the charge of affray is clearly wrong. Assault causing ABH is quite obvious just look at the video footage. Apparently they wanted to belatedly add ABH but were refused, looks like another police cock-up. Not end of discussion this has further to go. Yet another thing that you don't understand.
Optimistic as ever |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| steeleye20 Croydon 15 Aug 18 3.01pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Thank you for your learned opinion S
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| chris123 hove actually 15 Aug 18 4.53pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Not charging Hales must have confused the jury
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stuk Top half 15 Aug 18 5.31pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by chris123
Not charging Hales must have confused the jury As would neither side calling who would appear to be the two key witnesses.
Optimistic as ever |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| chris123 hove actually 15 Aug 18 5.38pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stuk
As would neither side calling who would appear to be the two key witnesses. They saw Hales kick one in the head three times
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.