Ben Stokes in Court
Discussion
Interesting case, which whatever the verdict, will lead to arguments about the trial.
On the one hand, BOTH of the men Stokes is accused of knocking unconscious armed themselves in the period before their being laid out, one with a bottle and one with a road sign pole - both dangerous weapons, and on the other hand Stokes is shown being restrained having knocked them down.
But did he really need restraining? We will never know!
However Stokes has been accused of being very drunk, and yet none of the video I have seen seem to show this - even when he was in handcuffs, he did not seem like many of the violent drunks we are used to seeing on TV reality programs! He seemed quite calm.
On the one hand, BOTH of the men Stokes is accused of knocking unconscious armed themselves in the period before their being laid out, one with a bottle and one with a road sign pole - both dangerous weapons, and on the other hand Stokes is shown being restrained having knocked them down.
But did he really need restraining? We will never know!
However Stokes has been accused of being very drunk, and yet none of the video I have seen seem to show this - even when he was in handcuffs, he did not seem like many of the violent drunks we are used to seeing on TV reality programs! He seemed quite calm.
NormalWisdom said:
ED209 said:
ralphrj said:
Found not guilty.
Having seen the CCTV footage I am quite surprised at that.Stokes could afford to buy his innocence and he did so.
Well, innocence isn’t the right word; he bought his not guilty verdict. We all know what he did and he certainly wasn’t innocent.
Also pretty amazed given the CCTV/mobile footage. However, that said the charge was affray.
(1) 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.
(2) Where 2 or more persons use or threaten the unlawful violence, it is the conduct of them taken together that must be considered for the purposes of subsection (1).
AINAL but the charge of affray sometimes seems a bit woolly to me. If it's a marauding gang of football hooligans hitting random strangers and you are stood there, fearful of gettig chinned, it is of course affray. Was anyone else (other than the combatants) there present fearful of their own personal safety? Or was it a pissed-up punch-up that happens (wrongly, of course) across the land every Saturday night but all participants knew exactly what they are getting into, and nobody else was 'present at the scene'? Obviously the persons filming were nearby, but not 'at the scene', as such.
I'd have thought Assault with ABH would have been more appropriate a charge, given that Stokes fractured the bloke's eye-socket? Layman's opinion, of course.
(1) 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.
(2) Where 2 or more persons use or threaten the unlawful violence, it is the conduct of them taken together that must be considered for the purposes of subsection (1).
AINAL but the charge of affray sometimes seems a bit woolly to me. If it's a marauding gang of football hooligans hitting random strangers and you are stood there, fearful of gettig chinned, it is of course affray. Was anyone else (other than the combatants) there present fearful of their own personal safety? Or was it a pissed-up punch-up that happens (wrongly, of course) across the land every Saturday night but all participants knew exactly what they are getting into, and nobody else was 'present at the scene'? Obviously the persons filming were nearby, but not 'at the scene', as such.
I'd have thought Assault with ABH would have been more appropriate a charge, given that Stokes fractured the bloke's eye-socket? Layman's opinion, of course.
Edited by PurpleTurtle on Tuesday 14th August 13:13
Edited by PurpleTurtle on Tuesday 14th August 13:14
PurpleTurtle said:
Also pretty amazed given the CCTV footage. However, that said the charge was affray.
(1) 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.
(2) Where 2 or more persons use or threaten the unlawful violence, it is the conduct of them taken together that must be considered for the purposes of subsection (1).
AINAL but the charge of affray has always seems a bit woolly to me. Was anyone else there present fearful of their own personal safety? Or was it a pissed-up punch-up that happens (wrongly, of course) across the land every Saturday night but all paricaipants know exactly what they are getting into, and nobody else is 'present at the scene'? Obviously the persons filming were nearby, but not 'at the scene', as such.
I'd have thought Assault with ABH would have been more appropriate a charge, given that Stokes fractured the bloke's eye-socket? Layman's opinion, of course.
All depends on whether or not the other parties made specific complaints of assault to the Police. The affray charge is there to cover the disorder aspect of the incident and not any assaults that occured during that incident(1) 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.
(2) Where 2 or more persons use or threaten the unlawful violence, it is the conduct of them taken together that must be considered for the purposes of subsection (1).
AINAL but the charge of affray has always seems a bit woolly to me. Was anyone else there present fearful of their own personal safety? Or was it a pissed-up punch-up that happens (wrongly, of course) across the land every Saturday night but all paricaipants know exactly what they are getting into, and nobody else is 'present at the scene'? Obviously the persons filming were nearby, but not 'at the scene', as such.
I'd have thought Assault with ABH would have been more appropriate a charge, given that Stokes fractured the bloke's eye-socket? Layman's opinion, of course.
REALIST123 said:
Having seen his legal team I’m not.
Stokes could afford to buy his innocence and he did so.
Well, innocence isn’t the right word; he bought his not guilty verdict. We all know what he did and he certainly wasn’t innocent.
Has Ben Stokes got more money than the Government and more resources than the police?Stokes could afford to buy his innocence and he did so.
Well, innocence isn’t the right word; he bought his not guilty verdict. We all know what he did and he certainly wasn’t innocent.
Graveworm said:
REALIST123 said:
Having seen his legal team I’m not.
Stokes could afford to buy his innocence and he did so.
Well, innocence isn’t the right word; he bought his not guilty verdict. We all know what he did and he certainly wasn’t innocent.
Has Ben Stokes got more money than the Government and more resources than the police?Stokes could afford to buy his innocence and he did so.
Well, innocence isn’t the right word; he bought his not guilty verdict. We all know what he did and he certainly wasn’t innocent.
If that's the case that may indicate that they've not got the public funds available to prosecute cases they don't think they've a strong chance of winning?
The reasoning behind the not guilty verdict appears to be that the violence was so obviously between and directed towards those involved in the actual fight that nobody else present would fear for their own personal safety.
I.e. the Affray charge fails.
Just keep it between yourselves lads and you're golden !
I.e. the Affray charge fails.
Just keep it between yourselves lads and you're golden !
Edited by Red 4 on Tuesday 14th August 14:14
I hope this isn't a naïve question, but why throughout the trial was there footage released of the brawl? Presumably at the behest of the prosecution, as opposed to the defence?
Doesn't it encourage trial by the general public, who may not be fully aware of the complexities of the matter?
So said:
I hope this isn't a naïve question, but why throughout the trial was there footage released of the brawl? Presumably at the behest of the prosecution, as opposed to the defence?
Doesn't it encourage trial by the general public, who may not be fully aware of the complexities of the matter?
It's an openness thing; it would be at the request of the press. Once something is shown in court it's public domain so they ask and usually the CPS say yes; so long as it's not going to cause too much offence, prejudice something else or be illegal. I suspect the actual video is better than the subjective view of a court reporter who watched it and then said what happened. Doesn't it encourage trial by the general public, who may not be fully aware of the complexities of the matter?
OverSteery said:
dumb question as BS only has to defend one action rather than run the country's CPS and Police service
Does he have more money and resources to apply to this single case? Probably.
I seriously doubt he had more resources than the police used or spent more more on his defence that the total cost of the prosecution. Ask Laura Johnson if money can beat a public order charge. Does he have more money and resources to apply to this single case? Probably.
Publically funded defendants usually have better legal teams than the CPS, and certainly more time to devote the case, but that has little to do with the overall equality of arms issues.
We now know he is not guilty, either he was innocent or the prosecution didn't do a good enough job. Occasionally the defence pull some dirty tricks but it's a cop out to say the defence were too good.
Graveworm said:
.
We now know he is not guilty, either he was innocent or the prosecution didn't do a good enough job. Occasionally the defence pull some dirty tricks but it's a cop out to say the defence were too good.
They convinced the jury that the charge did not fit.We now know he is not guilty, either he was innocent or the prosecution didn't do a good enough job. Occasionally the defence pull some dirty tricks but it's a cop out to say the defence were too good.
That's all that matters.
If they won then they were better, no ?
So said:
Forgive me if I have missed something, but I've not followed this closely.
Does this all add up to a bunch of t
ts getting pissed and battering each other, without any harm to anyone not directly involved?
Pretty much.Does this all add up to a bunch of t
ts getting pissed and battering each other, without any harm to anyone not directly involved?The jury were persuaded that the affray charge did not fit because anybody else present at the scene would not fear for their own personal safety because the violence was limited to the group who were fighting.
Edited by Red 4 on Tuesday 14th August 14:48
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff