Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Ben Stokes charged with affray



BensGrandad

New member
Jul 13, 2003
72,015
Haywards Heath
I find it odd that both defendants were cleared - there obviously was a pretty nasty fight going on, and presumably somebody must have started it! Pure speculation, but I wonder if the jury were also puzzled by the fact that two of the obvious witnesses were not called to give evidence and decided 'there's something we're not being told here'. Just me, personally, wondering - that's all, nothing more.

I think that both defense councils did their job better than the prosecution council and cast doubt as to who was to blame and the main perpetrator of the violence.
 




Triggaaar

Well-known member
Oct 24, 2005
53,135
Goldstone
I don't know whether the verdict is right or not, but what I will say is that he has at least already had some punishment for his actions (like missing the Ashes), and will probably think twice before doing something like that again.
 






kevo

Well-known member
Mar 8, 2008
9,801
How can that not have been affray?!
 




Easy 10

Brain dead MUG SHEEP
Jul 5, 2003
62,404
Location Location
How can that not have been affray?!

"A person is guilty of affray if he uses or threatens unlawful violence towards another and his conduct is such as would cause a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene to fear for his personal safety"

If the jurors decided that they would not have felt personally threatened by Stoke's behaviour that night, then the verdict has to be 'not guilty'. Its EXACTLY the conclusion I reached when I was a juror sat on an affray case earlier this year. The lad was having a tear-up in the street with someone who had headbutted his mate. Would I have felt personally threatened by him ? Nope. We acquitted him as well, unanimous verdict.
 




Easy 10

Brain dead MUG SHEEP
Jul 5, 2003
62,404
Location Location
Isnt the offense CAUSING an affray? But I could be wrong.

"Affray Definition: A fight between two or more persons in a public place so as to cause terror to the public. Related Terms: Mayhem, Duel, Chance Medley. A common law criminal offence comprised of the public fighting of two or more persons to the terror of the public."

Nothing about causing it.
 




BensGrandad

New member
Jul 13, 2003
72,015
Haywards Heath
"Affray Definition: A fight between two or more persons in a public place so as to cause terror to the public. Related Terms: Mayhem, Duel, Chance Medley. A common law criminal offence comprised of the public fighting of two or more persons to the terror of the public."

Nothing about causing it.

Thanks it appears I am wrong.
 




rippleman

Well-known member
Oct 18, 2011
4,988
The total absence of the gay guys as witnesses, who were pivotal to the whole event, leaves a bad taste. Something isn't right here. :shrug:
 




Brian Fantana

Well-known member
Oct 8, 2006
7,551
In the field
"A person is guilty of affray if he uses or threatens unlawful violence towards another and his conduct is such as would cause a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene to fear for his personal safety"

If the jurors decided that they would not have felt personally threatened by Stoke's behaviour that night, then the verdict has to be 'not guilty'. Its EXACTLY the conclusion I reached when I was a juror sat on an affray case earlier this year. The lad was having a tear-up in the street with someone who had headbutted his mate. Would I have felt personally threatened by him ? Nope. We acquitted him as well, unanimous verdict.

This is exactly what I was thinking earlier.

Had Stokes' and the other defendants' behaviour led to a brawl that involved more people and taken place in a busier street, and therefore presented a greater risk to the public at large, then there's a fair chance we'd have seen a different verdict.
 


Herr Tubthumper

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jul 11, 2003
62,683
The Fatherland
.....and according to the evidence given in court by the officer who arrested Stokes, this wasn't the case in this instance, but carry on....................

I saw the list of drinks which Stokes admitted to drinking, it was very long.
 


Brian Fantana

Well-known member
Oct 8, 2006
7,551
In the field
I saw the list of drinks which Stokes admitted to drinking, it was very long.

If you watch the police headcam footage from when Stokes is in the back of the police car, he doesn't seem to be that drunk to me. He's not slurring his words, he's not raising his voice, he's not being abusive or trying to resist what is happening and he's not unsteady on his feet. He clearly understands what is being said to him. Not denying that he was drinking that evening, but I wouldn't describe him as drunk - certainly not from that footage anyway.
 




GT49er

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Feb 1, 2009
49,181
Gloucester
If you watch the police headcam footage from when Stokes is in the back of the police car, he doesn't seem to be that drunk to me. He's not slurring his words, he's not raising his voice, he's not being abusive or trying to resist what is happening and he's not unsteady on his feet. He clearly understands what is being said to him. Not denying that he was drinking that evening, but I wouldn't describe him as drunk - certainly not from that footage anyway.

Exactly. And that is what the arresting officer said under oath in court.

At the end of the day, though, I still think Stokes is a lucky boy. He beat up somebody pretty badly and got away with it. I wonder what the outcome would have been with a charge of ABH? A broken eye socket would be quite a tricky one for the defence council to deal with!
 


Kalimantan Gull

Well-known member
Aug 13, 2003
13,436
Central Borneo / the Lizard
"Affray Definition: A fight between two or more persons in a public place so as to cause terror to the public. Related Terms: Mayhem, Duel, Chance Medley. A common law criminal offence comprised of the public fighting of two or more persons to the terror of the public."

Nothing about causing it.

So basically, you're allowed to have a fight, just don't get anyone else involved?

At what point does two people having a fight translate into GBH or whatever? One guy waving a bottle around and the other guy punching him to unconsciousness would seem to cover it. Is it that neither of them pressed charges against the other?

Seems I've totally misunderstood this case from the beginning :lol:
 


Triggaaar

Well-known member
Oct 24, 2005
53,135
Goldstone
"A person is guilty of affray if he uses or threatens unlawful violence towards another and his conduct is such as would cause a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene to fear for his personal safety"

If the jurors decided that they would not have felt personally threatened by Stoke's behaviour that night, then the verdict has to be 'not guilty'. Its EXACTLY the conclusion I reached when I was a juror sat on an affray case earlier this year. The lad was having a tear-up in the street with someone who had headbutted his mate. Would I have felt personally threatened by him ? Nope. We acquitted him as well, unanimous verdict.
I read your posts about the case you were on before, and you have experience on this subject that most of us don't. I don't understand the idea 'Would I have felt personally threatened by him?'. What if it was someone who was beating up people of a certain age, race, gender etc, and I didn't fit his preferred victim? Or what if they were beating up fans of a particular football team? I wouldn't necessarily feel threatened, but that doesn't mean he's not guilty.

In this case, the guy on the end of the punching had done something to annoy Stokes, so if I was there I wouldn't feel threatened, but that doesn't mean that anyone who says something to annoy someone else has it coming.
 


Triggaaar

Well-known member
Oct 24, 2005
53,135
Goldstone
The total absence of the gay guys as witnesses, who were pivotal to the whole event, leaves a bad taste. Something isn't right here. :shrug:
It certainly seems odd, but I wouldn't say it leaves a bad taste, it's simply that neither the prosecution or defence thought it would help their case to call them as a witness.
 






BBassic

I changed this.
Jul 28, 2011
13,054
I read your posts about the case you were on before, and you have experience on this subject that most of us don't. I don't understand the idea 'Would I have felt personally threatened by him?'. What if it was someone who was beating up people of a certain age, race, gender etc, and I didn't fit his preferred victim? Or what if they were beating up fans of a particular football team? I wouldn't necessarily feel threatened, but that doesn't mean he's not guilty.

In this case, the guy on the end of the punching had done something to annoy Stokes, so if I was there I wouldn't feel threatened, but that doesn't mean that anyone who says something to annoy someone else has it coming.

That's the bit I don't understand either.

Imagine if someone like The Rock was on that jury; I doubt he'd feel threatened by anyone much less Stokes. Rather skews the outcome. I've probably just misunderstood though.
 


Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here