ChatterBank0 min ago
Not Guilty
So, the twelve who heard the whole evidence, not just the gutter media's smears, found him not guilty. Now he can resume his unjustly interrupted career.
https:/
https:/
Answers
So - a "something or nothing" scuffle outside a club has given a PCSO (Keystone Cop) her moment in the sun and (probably) cost England the Ashes. Stokes may be a loud arrogant knob ... or he may be a lovely chap - I have no way of knowing - but there was certainly some nasty "cutting him down to size" going on from the Lilliputians in uniform and the CPS desk wallahs...
12:34 Tue 14th Aug 2018
// Surely you did not expect him to be found guilty?.//
yeah I thought he was as guilty as sin
you cant just walk up / chase someone and knock him down and out and then say it was self-defence
well erm you can actually
we were nt told the whole story and I think the jury thought they werent getting the whole bit - the judge did warn the jury that they couldnt draw conclusions from witnesses who werent called ( like Kai and Sweetie ) - who have since given interviews to the press and not really let on what they said to each other
yeah I thought he was as guilty as sin
you cant just walk up / chase someone and knock him down and out and then say it was self-defence
well erm you can actually
we were nt told the whole story and I think the jury thought they werent getting the whole bit - the judge did warn the jury that they couldnt draw conclusions from witnesses who werent called ( like Kai and Sweetie ) - who have since given interviews to the press and not really let on what they said to each other
// he was suspended for the ashes series, the powers that be obviously considered him to be guilty //
noooooo - suspension in cases like these the one who think you are guilty lean over backwards to stress that "it is a neutral event"
the powers that be wouldnt have any access to evidence but only what ben S told them.
noooooo - suspension in cases like these the one who think you are guilty lean over backwards to stress that "it is a neutral event"
the powers that be wouldnt have any access to evidence but only what ben S told them.
ael - // he was suspended for the ashes series, the powers that be obviously considered him to be guilty //
No - the powers that be had to consider that he may have been found guilty, and if not, that the Cricket Disciplinary Board may have their own sanctions to hand down.
Either of these could make Mr Stokes unavailable, so it would be lunacy to pick him and then have to drop him afterwards.
This is standard procedure for any team member due in court for a case the result of which which may affect their availability.
No - the powers that be had to consider that he may have been found guilty, and if not, that the Cricket Disciplinary Board may have their own sanctions to hand down.
Either of these could make Mr Stokes unavailable, so it would be lunacy to pick him and then have to drop him afterwards.
This is standard procedure for any team member due in court for a case the result of which which may affect their availability.
“everyone was acquitted. So obviously nothing happened. The video must have been faked.”
No no noooooooooooo, jno.
Mr Stokes was charged with Affray. This is a serious offence under the public order act. It is the third most serious under that Act, after Riot – which is rarely charged – and Violent Disorder and it carries a maximum sentence of three years. The elements needed to secure a conviction are various and it seems all were met. However, I believe (though have not been following the case in detail) that Mr Stokes based his not guilty plea on “self–defence” of himself or others. Once that defence is raised (and it is available for a number of offences involving violence) the prosecution has an additional burden to prove that the defendant did not act in self-defence. They obviously did not discharge that duty to the satisfaction of the jury and so he was acquitted. It doesn’t mean that “nothing happened”.
No no noooooooooooo, jno.
Mr Stokes was charged with Affray. This is a serious offence under the public order act. It is the third most serious under that Act, after Riot – which is rarely charged – and Violent Disorder and it carries a maximum sentence of three years. The elements needed to secure a conviction are various and it seems all were met. However, I believe (though have not been following the case in detail) that Mr Stokes based his not guilty plea on “self–defence” of himself or others. Once that defence is raised (and it is available for a number of offences involving violence) the prosecution has an additional burden to prove that the defendant did not act in self-defence. They obviously did not discharge that duty to the satisfaction of the jury and so he was acquitted. It doesn’t mean that “nothing happened”.
Bristol couple defend Ben Stokes' actions http://
// “everyone was acquitted. So obviously nothing happened. The video must have been faked.” //
a shorter version of NJs post is
The crown did not establish the case to the jurys satisfaction
Breaking an eye socket is a serious injury - I have double vision it is terribly disabling. and you can smack someone in the mush and break their eye socket and get away with it.
It will truly screw ( ha!) a civil claim ( worth around £50 000)
a shorter version of NJs post is
The crown did not establish the case to the jurys satisfaction
Breaking an eye socket is a serious injury - I have double vision it is terribly disabling. and you can smack someone in the mush and break their eye socket and get away with it.
It will truly screw ( ha!) a civil claim ( worth around £50 000)
A spokeswoman for the Crown Prosecution Service said: “The evidence of Mr O’Connor and Mr Barry was disclosed to the defence but it was not deemed necessary to call them as witnesses in the case.”
Though they did not give evidence to the trial, a month after the incident, the couple gave an exclusive joint interview to the Sun, praising Stokes for his actions.
Though they did not give evidence to the trial, a month after the incident, the couple gave an exclusive joint interview to the Sun, praising Stokes for his actions.
NJ, the chap he was apparently defending himself against was also acquitted. A fellow cricketer who was (allegedly) on the video kicking an Afghan veteran in the head wasn't even charged. It appears the CPS also tried to add a couple of assault charges once the trial began, but was refused (I'm not surprised, they'd had almost a year to sort their charges out).
So all in all, seemingly a drunken street brawl in which no laws were broken. Or maybe, as PP suggests, simply one for which the prosecution wasn't up to it.
So all in all, seemingly a drunken street brawl in which no laws were broken. Or maybe, as PP suggests, simply one for which the prosecution wasn't up to it.
"NJ, the chap he was apparently defending himself against was also acquitted. A fellow cricketer who was (allegedly) on the video kicking an Afghan veteran in the head wasn't even charged. It appears the CPS also tried to add a couple of assault charges once the trial began, but was refused (I'm not surprised, they'd had almost a year to sort their charges out). "
Quite so, jno. Affray is a notoriously difficult offence to make out. I don't know whether Mr Stokes elected for jury trial or the Magistrates declined jurisdiction. But in any event the jury were not convinced. I'm also not sure why straightforward assault charges were not laid. All in all in seems to be a prize ballsup by the CPS.
Quite so, jno. Affray is a notoriously difficult offence to make out. I don't know whether Mr Stokes elected for jury trial or the Magistrates declined jurisdiction. But in any event the jury were not convinced. I'm also not sure why straightforward assault charges were not laid. All in all in seems to be a prize ballsup by the CPS.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
 |