As a general point, I've seen juries over the years acquit defendants when both sides of the same punch-up are in the dock, as in this case.
Seems to me juries may be confused or in some way uneasy about that situation, the safest course then being not guilty verdicts.
Stokes ran self-defence of another - the gay men - as a defence.
The jury may only have been unsure that defence was true, which is slightly different to believing it, but the result is the same - not guilty.
The CCTV did/does look bad on Stokes, although footage of him in handcuffs in the back of the police car showed him being Captain Sensible, which may have undermined the prosecution's case of booze-fuelled 'red mist' violence.
Before the trial started the prosecution tried to add alternative counts of assault occasioning actual bodily harm against Stokes.
The judge refused, partly on the basis the prosecution had 11 months to prepare the case, thus there's an element of an under-pressure CPS doing case preparation at the last minute.
The jury didn't know about that application, which is why it's only been reported at the end of the trial after they've been discharged.
Questions are also being asked about why Alex Hales wasn't charged.
Handy for Stokes, because he could heap some of the blame onto him, although I doubt they will now be on the lash together anytime soon.