Ben Stokes charged with affray

[happypig]

It does seem strange that they've ok'd him to play now. The ECB could have cleared him for the Ashes by asking him if he was going to contest any charge should one be laid and by asking any solicitor (or judge/magistrate) how long it was likely to take to go to trial if he was charged.

 

[Papa Lazarou]

It does seem strange that they've ok'd him to play now. The ECB could have cleared him for the Ashes by asking him if he was going to contest any charge should one be laid and by asking any solicitor (or judge/magistrate) how long it was likely to take to go to trial if he was charged.

Ridiculous situation.

 

[BensGrandad]

When I was a magistrate I dealt with several cases of Affray and ABH. As far as I can remember none received a fine.
Maybe you are referring to cases prior to 1986 when the offence was changed upon the introduction of the Public Order Act ?

Whilst not disputing your greater knowledge on this I notice all the media, virtually without exception, are saying that he has been charged with the minor offense of affray where the MAXIMUM sentence could be 3 years but that seems unlikely no mention of this being the starting point for sentence as you have suggested, so I am a little confused.

 

[happypig]

Whilst not disputing your greater knowledge on this I notice all the media, virtually without exception, are saying that he has been charged with the minor offense of affray where the MAXIMUM sentence could be 3 years but that seems unlikely no mention of this being the starting point for sentence as you have suggested, so I am a little confused.

They are speculating that the Magistrates will decide that the offence is not serious enough to send to Crown Court. Of course, it is Stokes' choice whether he has it heard in a Mags or CC. Only he knows whether he would do that.
If found guilty, then the Magistrates or Judge will decide which of the three levels it starts at (I may not have made that clear before).

 

[BensGrandad]

The BBC Sports says the date of the hearing is set for 13 February which is also the date of a test match starting against NZ I think. If so would his legal team ask for change of date and would the magistrates consider it which then brings up the question on what grounds should a postponement be granted. Would they grant such to me if I was booked to go on holiday that day.

 

[Da Man Clay]

Absolutely!

I smell an Australian plot somewhere in all this, maybe in our Police service or at Lords HQ even?

It makes ZERO sense to leave someone out of The Ashes FFS when not charged, but re-instated after The Ashes knowing the individual is now charged?

Australia would have hammered us with or without Stokes.

 

[LlcoolJ]

It does seem strange that they've ok'd him to play now. The ECB could have cleared him for the Ashes by asking him if he was going to contest any charge should one be laid and by asking any solicitor (or judge/magistrate) how long it was likely to take to go to trial if he was charged.

Indeed. It's just the standard "complete and utter cock up" by the ECB. Clueless!

 

[BensGrandad]

Australia would have hammered us with or without Stokes.

That is debatable as he may have provided the bowling we needed in the 2nd test when they scored runs freely and put on a large score. He also may have stabilised the tail end batting when we crumbled so meekly and been support for Bairstow and vice versa. That will never be answered unfortunately.

 

[happypig]

The BBC Sports says the date of the hearing is set for 13 February which is also the date of a test match starting against NZ I think. If so would his legal team ask for change of date and would the magistrates consider it which then brings up the question on what grounds should a postponement be granted. Would they grant such to me if I was booked to go on holiday that day.

His solicitor could ask for an adjournment; if they did the Magistrates would consider it but I've no idea what they would decide.
As for a pre-booked holiday, you would generally be granted an adjournment under those circumstances, same as if you had exams.

 

[BensGrandad]

His solicitor could ask for an adjournment; if they did the Magistrates would consider it but I've no idea what they would decide.
As for a pre-booked holiday, you would generally be granted an adjournment under those circumstances, same as if you had exams.

So based on the holiday issue it would seem likely that they will get an adjournment until after the 2 test matches as it is only a short tour.

 

[happypig]

So based on the holiday issue it would seem likely that they will get an adjournment until after the 2 test matches as it is only a short tour.

Hard to say. One bench of three (or a District Judge(MC)) might decide that it's not pre-booked specifically for him and say no, Another bench might take a more sympathetic view. A lot of it would depend on whether the prosecutor opposed it.

 

[Springal]

The BBC Sports says the date of the hearing is set for 13 February which is also the date of a test match starting against NZ I think. If so would his legal team ask for change of date and would the magistrates consider it which then brings up the question on what grounds should a postponement be granted. Would they grant such to me if I was booked to go on holiday that day.

Now withdrawn from squad until after the first court hearing.

 

[ManOfSussex]

England cricketer Ben Stokes pleads not guilty to affray

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-43044067

 

[CHAPPERS]

England cricketer Ben Stokes pleads not guilty to affray

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-43044067

I think I'm probably being a bit thick here but surely the video evidence is pretty conclusive.

 

[happypig]

Interesting that it was sent to Crown Court rather than the defendants electing CC trial. This obviously means that the District Judge (single judge sitting as a magistrate) feels that the offence, IF PROVEN, is serious enough for a Crown Court penalty.
To explain, to decide mode of trial, the Magistrates (or in this case a DJ) consider the prosecution's case at it's most serious and decides whether the maximum punishment they could impose (for affray 6 months) is enough. If they feel the offence, taken at it's highest, would merit a more severe punishment then they would send to Crown Court.

 

[glasfryn]

England cricketer Ben Stokes pleads not guilty to affray

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-43044067

Specsavers������.p

 

[Taybha]

I think I'm probably being a bit thick here but surely the video evidence is pretty conclusive.

I think the rules change when you have a few bob and a team of expert lawyers working on your behalf , the Ben Stokes lookalike angle will be rolled out if all else fails , and The Sun will find a patsy who will own up for a nice little lump sum ,which will dwarf in value of the actual fine imposed . Obviously just IMO

 

[LlcoolJ]

Interesting that it was sent to Crown Court rather than the defendants electing CC trial. This obviously means that the District Judge (single judge sitting as a magistrate) feels that the offence, IF PROVEN, is serious enough for a Crown Court penalty.
To explain, to decide mode of trial, the Magistrates (or in this case a DJ) consider the prosecution's case at it's most serious and decides whether the maximum punishment they could impose (for affray 6 months) is enough. If they feel the offence, taken at it's highest, would merit a more severe punishment then they would send to Crown Court.

It could also mean that the case is considered too complex for magistrates and that crown is appropriate. It may well be in Stokes' best interest to have it heard in crown as that way he gets a jury.

 

[LlcoolJ]

I think I'm probably being a bit thick here but surely the video evidence is pretty conclusive.

The video evidence against Gerrard looked worse and he got found not guilty.

 

[happypig]

It could also mean that the case is considered too complex for magistrates and that crown is appropriate. It may well be in Stokes' best interest to have it heard in crown as that way he gets a jury.

Nope. Complexity doesn't come into it other than if there is a specific point of law but in that case a bench of three will always have a legal advisor who is a qualified solicitor or barrister (A DJ is a qualified solicitor in his/her own right).

On the second point, there is some anecdotal evidence that juries are reluctant to convict in certain cases due to the perceived harshness of the punishment compared to the nature of the offence (for example an 18 year old bloke pinches a 17 year old girl's bum in a nightclub for a laugh, technically that's indecent assault and so, if convicted, he faces going on the Sex Offenders Register; a jury might think this too onerous and find him not guilty)