Cricket thread

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

Beebo

Firm and Fruity
Location
Hexleybeef
I'm certainly no expert but I gathered that the affray charge doesn't always apply when the perpetrator faces an imminent threat to him/herself, i.e. there's a kind of right to self defence. Part of Stokes testimony apparently mentions him being hit by a bottle as the trigger to his actions, so it may have been the self defence aspect that kept the jury exercised.
But the other fella got off as well.

Someone must have started it?
 
D

Deleted member 1258

Guest
But the other fella got off as well.

Someone must have started it?

You sound as confused about this as I am.
 

Pale Rider

Legendary Member
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.
 
D

Deleted member 1258

Guest
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.

Why Hales wasn't charged is a good question, was he in court as a witness? If he wasn't could it be that the jury didn't get the full picture?
 

Pale Rider

Legendary Member
Hales wasn't called as a witness as far as I'm aware.

He certainly wasn't legally represented, so it was open season on him for the others to deflect the blame in his direction.

The jury might have wondered why they didn't hear from him, or some others, such as the gay men.

Routinely, the jury would have been told not to speculate, and to try the case on the evidence presented to them in court.
 
Bugger me, only 300 more needed to win. I thought we'd be all out by now.

Home advantage, you know! ;)

We're only going to get stuffed, as opposed to being annihilated. Mind you, I'd be very happy for Stokes and Buttler just bat and bat and bat...

But,
th?id=OIP.3i9z6-s8dmeEEddJ0QdN2gHaG7&pid=15.jpg
 

Serge

Über Member
Location
Nuneaton
Home advantage, you know! ;)

We're only going to get stuffed, as opposed to being annihilated. Mind you, I'd be very happy for Stokes and Buttler just bat and bat and bat...

But, View attachment 426132
Just finishing the day off would amaze me.
 

AndyRM

XOXO
Location
North Shields
Agreed. Valiant stand from Stokes and Buttler but the damage had already been done on Sunday. Very frustrating after dominating the first two tests.
 
Top Bottom