Ben Stokes charged with affray

[Garry Nelson's teacher]

I don't think Mr Warner will be taking any liberties with him when they next meet; he's clearly going to be a trickier geezer to punch than Joe Root.

 

[Easy 10]

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

I believe ABH is when someone receives a physical wound (a cut, a bruise, something that heals). GBH is when someone receives a serious or lifechanging one. The fact that in this instance he knocked 2 people to the floor unconcious, he's surely lucky that ABH wasn't on the chargesheet as well. Again, the case I was on, the defendant broke a glass on the back of the other guys head which I would have thought would've been an ABH all day long - but it wasn't on the chargesheet, only affray, so thats all we could deliberate on.

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.

The whole aspect of "would I have felt threatened" does seem to give a large amount of scope for people to be acquitted of affray. I'm not going to feel personally threatened if two or more blokes are knocking seven bells out of each other, because I'm not involved, they're not coming after me or threatening me. They're caught up in their own spat or argument. Sure I'd stay out of the way, but I wouldn't be thinking "oh shit, I hope he doesn't come after me".

Its a bit of a strange way of looking at it, and must lead to a lot of acquittals if thats the way we, as jurors, must frame our way of thinking.

 

[Rodney Thomas]

[tweet]1029351464978788353[/tweet]

 

[Bevendean Hillbilly]

I’m not surprised he got off with it but I am puzzled about definitions. If I was caught on CCTV knocking out some bloke I’d expect to be found guilty of something.

This basically says no one hit anyone, no one was injured and no one saw anything. Very odd.

 

[Billy the Fish]

Waste of everyone's time.

It's obvious that nobody involved or near the incident wanted to press charges, what's the point in the CPS trying to criminalise people

Regarding the gay chaps, is it possible that their account made no difference to the affray charge, hence their statement wasn't needed?

 

[Easy 10]

[tweet]1029351464978788353[/tweet]

Interesting, but frankly you might as well just jump to the final question !

 

[happypig]

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

I think that in this case both of them say the other one started it and there are no reliable independent witnesses to counter that; in that case it's 50/50 and you cannot convict on that (has to be beyond reasonable doubt). Hence the prosecution going for affray.

As for GBH (or ABH or even common assault), "acting in defence of another" is a perfectly reasonable reason for clumping someone. However, once they no longer represent a threat, then you can be done, so no wading in when they're on the floor.

 

[Bevendean Hillbilly]

Waste of everyone's time.

It's obvious that nobody involved or near the incident wanted to press charges, what's the point in the CPS trying to criminalise people

Regarding the gay chaps, is it possible that their account made no difference to the affray charge, hence their statement wasn't needed?

Seeing as Stokes defence was based entirely on, what he says, was a threat of violence against them then whatever they saw has to be relevant?

 

[Brian Fantana]

And now he's back in the test squad too for Saturday.

 

[Bevendean Hillbilly]

And now he's back in the test squad too for Saturday.

Good.

 

[vegster]

Excellent news, results never in doubt. No convictions as quite obviously it was just handbags.

 

[Brian Fantana]

Interesting to read that the CPS wanted to charge Ben Stokes with ABH, but only decided this on the morning of the trial beginning - so the Judge dismissed it.

 

[Lower West Stander]

Waste of everyone's time.

It's obvious that nobody involved or near the incident wanted to press charges, what's the point in the CPS trying to criminalise people

Regarding the gay chaps, is it possible that their account made no difference to the affray charge, hence their statement wasn't needed?

This is what I don't get.

It took almost a year, a week of trial and Stokes omission from the Ashes.

Was found not guilty after a morning.

Why did the CPS bother?

 

[Worried Man Blues]

He was lucky he didn't break his hand!

 

[Brian Fantana]

This is what I don't get.

It took almost a year, a week of trial and Stokes omission from the Ashes.

Was found not guilty after a morning.

Why did the CPS bother?

If they'd have charged him with ABH, I think we'd have seen a different verdict personally. But that's on the CPS.

 

[SAC]

Once again a highly paid sportsman is able to employ the best defence that money can buy and is not guilty. I stopped being surprised after Gerrard was found not guilty.

 

[LlcoolJ]

Interesting to read that the CPS wanted to charge Ben Stokes with ABH, but only decided this on the morning of the trial beginning - so the Judge dismissed it.

The CPS are a total shambles. Understaffed, underfunded and with too many really important decisions that can ruin innocent people's lives for years, made by under qualified, over pressured staff.

 

[LlcoolJ]

Once again a highly paid sportsman is able to employ the best defence that money can buy and is not guilty. I stopped being surprised after Gerrard was found not guilty.

How do you explain the other two blokes being found not guilty then? It's a case that should never have got to court.

 

[Brian Fantana]

How do you explain the other two blokes being found not guilty then? It's a case that should never have got to court.

This.

Given that similar incidents happen in virtually every city in England every week of the year, the court system would be processing nothing but affray cases if all of them went to trial.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Seeing as Stokes defence was based entirely on, what he says, was a threat of violence against them then whatever they saw has to be relevant?

For Stokes to successfully claim that he was acting out of a genuine perception of a threat to their safety, it doesn't necessarily have to follow that they themselves would agree that they were at threat, or indeed that there was any actual threat. So long as he can convince the jury that he believed it - then it is a workable defence.

(But your point stands, and I agree - you'd think for a jury to decide whether his perception was a reasonable one, they'd have wanted to hear these lads' accounts of the incident)