Who do you think you are [MENTION=3975]ben[/MENTION] Stokes Grandad?
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Ben Stokes charged with affray
- Thread starter Titanic
- Start date
Who do you think you are [MENTION=3975]ben[/MENTION] Stokes Grandad?
BensGrandad
New member
Not at all just dont want Bozza or NSC to get in trouble by somebody posting the wrong thing on here.
Judging by your comments, you think he’s guilty. That’s why you wouldn’t like to meet him.
Three blokes have a scuffle. That's affray. They might get done they might not. One's a good Test cricketer. Not much to it.
If it had been Warner, I'd like to meet him. I don't care if the court finds him guilty or not.
Why? Or are you going to keep playing dumb?
Bravo sir.
- Jan 3, 2012
- 17,352
One of the victims ended up with a fractured eye socket, I believe. That sounds like GBH to me.
AmexRuislip
Retired Spy 🕵️♂️
happypig
Staring at the rude boys
If he over stepped the mark, then the batsman would get a free hit
happypig
Staring at the rude boys
If it cannot be determined who threw the first punch, then the person who did the injuring could argue self defence (ie "he came of worse but he started it"). To prove Affray it is not necessary to prove who started it, merely that a bystander would fear for his safety.
Easy 10
Brain dead MUG SHEEP
Thats not what he's been charged with though. GBH is not on Stoke's chargesheet for this trial, so he cannot be convicted of GBH - presumably UNLESS the victim decides he wants him charged at a later date. But had he wanted him done for GBH then you'd have thought he'd have wanted it added to the chargesheet for this particular trial.
I sat as a juror on a similar case this year where the charge was affray. It was a young footballer who was involved in a brawl in a Crawley pub. We had CCTV evidence of the whole incident, but the guidance we were given from the judge is that in order to find someone guilty of affray, you have to place yourself at the scene when it was happening, and consider whether you would have felt PERSONALLY at threat from the actions of the defendant.
As it turned out, he was wading in defending a mate of his who had just been headbutted, he didn't instigate it. The brawl started inside, went outside and got very nasty. But I've been in pubs or clubs plenty of times when its all gone off between a couple of dinlows, and not felt in any personal danger, I'd just steer clear. Had I been there, he'd have had no beef with me, he wasn't running amok twatting people left right and centre. I wouldn't have been under threat from him. So I had to find him not guilty (and he was acquitted). But then I'm a fairly average sized middle aged bloke. I can see a woman of mature years WOULD have felt under threat, or that her safety was at risk, perhaps understandably. But we reached a unanimous verdict of not guilty.
But he's a lucky boy. At one point he broke a glass over the back of the other guys head, and he needed stitches. That was ABH. But again, ABH wasn't even on the chargesheet, only affray. And on that charge, we acquitted him. Had ABH been on there though, I'd have found him guilty of that all day long.
Perhaps Stokes had better hope there aren't some slightly vulnerable maybe elderly jurors passing judgement on this trial.
Last edited:
Easy 10
Brain dead MUG SHEEP
Exactly. That is going to be the entire crux of this case - whether as a bystander, were you there, would you feel that your own personal safety was at risk ?
Having seen the footage, were I there at the time I'd have probably watched it kicking off, but I wouldn't have got involved. So would I PERSONALLY have felt in peril from any of them ? I don't think so. I certainly couldn't be sure. And if you're not sure beyond reasonable doubt, then you cannot find someone guilty.
Affray, violent disorder and riot all fall into this murky set of offences.
Having been involved personally in a poor outcome my view of the whole idea is that if they don't know who did what, through lack of evidence or conflicting statements, then every person from the crowd who came out better than the other gets tarred with the same brush, even if you did nothing.
Having been involved personally in a poor outcome my view of the whole idea is that if they don't know who did what, through lack of evidence or conflicting statements, then every person from the crowd who came out better than the other gets tarred with the same brush, even if you did nothing.
Da Man Clay
T'Blades
- Dec 16, 2004
- 16,286
It’s a strange direction as it’s not actually specifically a test of your being personally in fear - but that a person of ‘reasonable firmness’ would be in fear of their personal safety - specifically to avoid pretty much exactly what you’re talking about (i.e. that you specifically are used to seeing it in pubs and not overly concerned as you know how to avoid it). I do appreciate it’s a tough direction for a judge to give to a jury though. It’s hard to try and work out what exactly a person of reasonable firmness would feel.
Easy 10
Brain dead MUG SHEEP
It is indeed. So (for me) I also had to weigh up whether I felt this guy was dangerous. But when he was in the dock he was honest and contrite, very articulate. He also had no previous convictions for violent disorder, so this was out of character. I DID have a problem with him breaking a glass over the back of the guys head (the bloke who kicked it all off by headbutting the defendants mate), but as I say, that wasn't even mentioned on the chargesheet, there was no ABH/GBH charge.
It was a tough call, but I came back to the judges guidance, and I found I was a long way from convinced that I (as a person of 'reasonable firmness') would have felt personally at risk from him had I been there, so I couldn't find him guilty. I had a real problem with the glass incident though, he was lucky the other bloke didn't press charges for that I guess.
I get that you've been a magistrate and know your stuff. But you didn't ever reply to me earlier on in the thread about the fact that some cases are deemed too complex for magistrates court and are referred to crown because of that.
You said that doesn't happen, but it does. In many cases. I'd be more inclined to believe what you're saying and trust your experience if you hadn't got that bit completely wrong.
- Jan 3, 2012
- 17,352
Thanks for that. Genuinely interesting. I did jury service a few years ago on a drug smuggling case and it was fascinating to see the English legal system at work, particularly the number of times the jury went out while they argued legal points.
That surprised me as well - averaged 2-3 times a day over the course of an 8 day trial.
I appreciate this is not a reply to me but my understanding is that all cases start in magistrates and it is “seriousness” which moves It to crown court, not complexity.