Ben Stokes - not guilty....

Tringa

Tringa

Numpty of the Day'
Suspended / Banned
Messages
6,133
Name
Dave
Edit My Images
Yes
.... and neither is anyone else.

Think I have lost the plot on this case. During the ensuing fracas two people were knocked unconscious, one of them needed hospital treatment, there were witnesses (oddly enough the two gay guys were not called to give evidence), there was a recording of the event but it seems in the eyes of the law no one is guilty of an offence.

Does this mean I can get a bit tanked and have a scrap and it will be OK?

Dave
 
It seems Stokes has a ‘history’ of various misdemeanours that suggest he is a ‘loose cannon’ I guess this cannot be a factor in this case. However, I thought he was fortunate to be found not guilty (based on what I read/saw) before reading this history. I now hope the ECB come down heavy on this anti-social idiot. Maybe he got lucky and had a jury heavily loaded with English cricket fans ?
 
It seems that he was only charged with Affray.................no mention of the physical injuries he inflicted. Indeed one recipient of the violence he inflicted was in the dock with him for the same offence and he also was found not guilty.

A bit of a strange case, bearing in mind the charges or lack of them and the outcome, IMO
 
Plenty of similar "dust-ups" in town centres up and down the country every weekend, the majority of which don't result in formal charges, let alone a court case.
Probably only got as far as it did because of his slight "celebrity" status.
 
viv1969 said:
Plenty of similar "dust-ups" in town centres up and down the country every weekend, the majority of which don't result in formal charges, let alone a court case.
Probably only got as far as it did because of his slight "celebrity" status.
Click to expand...

This!
 
badlywornroy said:
It seems Stokes has a ‘history’ of various misdemeanours that suggest he is a ‘loose cannon’ I guess this cannot be a factor in this case. However, I thought he was fortunate to be found not guilty (based on what I read/saw) before reading this history. I now hope the ECB come down heavy on this anti-social idiot. Maybe he got lucky and had a jury heavily loaded with English cricket fans ?
Click to expand...

Why come down on him if he was found not guilty? Why bother with trials in the first place?
 
I'm still confused - having a fight with the results that happened in this situation is OK, acceptable within the law, then?

Dave
 
badlywornroy said:
Not guilty is the legal verdict. Now let’s wait and see if his employer (ECB) consider he needs punishment?
Click to expand...
He's already in the squad for the 3rd test against India and rightly so imo
Tringa said:
I'm still confused - having a fight with the results that happened in this situation is OK, acceptable within the law, then?

Dave
Click to expand...
He argued it was self defence and he was protecting a gay couple, the jury believed him. FWIW the gay couple spoke to ITV after the trial and seemed grateful for his intervention.

Kai Barry and William O'Connor - the couple Mr Stokes defended - said they were thankful for what he had done.
Mr Barry said: "I thought he was just a normal lad sticking up for someone that was obviously weaker than he was.
"When I realised who he was I thought, fair play, because obviously he put his career at risk for someone that he never knew."

Seems the right verdict to me
 
Last edited:
Tringa said:
I'm still confused - having a fight with the results that happened in this situation is OK, acceptable within the law, then?

Dave
Click to expand...

Well, not acceptable within the law Dave which is why the Crown Prosecution Service sent it to trial. The Jury have deemed the protagonists innocent of the charge of affray. Since the verdict it has been stated that the CPS wanted to charge Stokes with ABH (actual bodily harm) but seemingly screwed up and were too late to change the charge.
 
badlywornroy said:
Well, not acceptable within the law Dave which is why the Crown Prosecution Service sent it to trial. The Jury have deemed the protagonists innocent of the charge of affray. Since the verdict it has been stated that the CPS wanted to charge Stokes with ABH (actual bodily harm) but seemingly screwed up and were too late to change the charge.
Click to expand...
To be honest I doubt it would have made a difference. The defence would have been the same, self defence, considering the jury believed it to be self defence with this charge I doubt they would have seen it any different with a charge of ABH. Further I would have doubts about a likely ABH charge too, broken bones usually result an a GBH charge.
 
Last edited:
Good solicitor
 
Tringa said:
I'm still confused - having a fight with the results that happened in this situation is OK, acceptable within the law, then?

Dave
Click to expand...
No, but that doesn’t mean it’s not a regular occurrence and that the vast majority of similar occurrences don’t even result in arrest.

It’s not OK to go round hitting people, but that doesn’t alter the fact that 99.9% off the time it goes unreported.
 
cambsno said:
Why come down on him if he was found not guilty? Why bother with trials in the first place?
Click to expand...
He was found by a jury to be not guilty of the the criminal act of affray.
At the risk of reopening a can of worms...
The evidence shows he’s definitely guilty of hitting a bloke.
Now why he did it, whether or not he’s a great bloke defending others, or a trouble causer is something known only to those close to him, and those who were there.

The ECB know he hit a bloke, whether they decide to punish him for it has nothing to do with the jury’s verdict. It’s a different question ‘does the fact he hit a bloke bring English cricket into disrepute?’

If it was me, my employer would already have punished me.
 
jakeblu said:
He's already in the squad for the 3rd test against India and rightly so imo
Click to expand...


https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ben-stokes-cleared-but-goes-back-on-trial-gwxl8vfvd


Quote from BBC Sport.

Ben Stokes, Role model ?

"This is a man, after all, who was sent home from an England Lions tour in
2013 to Australia for late-night drinking. Who was reprimanded for using
“obscene, offensive or insulting” language during a test match against the
West Indies in August 2017. Who was warned by a judge in 2016 that he
could face jail for another driving offence, after being caught speeding
four times. Who last year had to apologise to Katie Price and her disabled
son Harvey for a video that showed the England player imitating a TV clip
of the youngster. A man who former ECB chairman Lord MacLaurin
accused of “sticking two fingers up to management” over the bristol incident."
 
Last edited:
jakeblu said:
Your not guilty of hitting anyone (legally) if its in self defence
Click to expand...

Watch the video, at the end the guy is backing away with his hands up palms forward and Stokes ‘drops’ him ! Watch the part earlier when the bloke goes down and Stokes keeps punching him on the ground.

I obviously do not understand what “self defence” means.

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RvXDg4IcYiw
 
There have been cases of violence used as a defence and mention made of the "reasonable force..." In some cases 'excessive force was used' and I think the person was found guilty of that.

I find it intriguing that he and the person he hit were charged with affray........why was it not assault???

Furthermore, there have been cases and as I recall a campaign to make the 18-24 age group aware that "a single punch can kill......" Stokes floored the other guy with a single punch! The outcome could have been far different.

I do wonder about the message this case is sending out?
 
Videos have been shown to the jury, combined with the other evidence presented, they still found him not guilty. Stokes argued he feared for his safety and those around him, that there being the crucial point, the jury believed that. It took them less than two and a half hours to find them both not guilty. Personally I don't really know how I would react if someone threatened me with a bottle, I was never particularly handy with my fists even when I was younger, but If I'd manage to knock them to the ground I might be tempted to discourage them from getting back up again.
 
badlywornroy said:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ben-stokes-cleared-but-goes-back-on-trial-gwxl8vfvd


Quote from BBC Sport.

Ben Stokes, Role model ?

"This is a man, after all, who was sent home from an England Lions tour in
2013 to Australia for late-night drinking. Who was reprimanded for using
“obscene, offensive or insulting” language during a test match against the
West Indies in August 2017. Who was warned by a judge in 2016 that he
could face jail for another driving offence, after being caught speeding
four times. Who last year had to apologise to Katie Price and her disabled
son Harvey for a video that showed the England player imitating a TV clip
of the youngster. A man who former ECB chairman Lord MacLaurin
accused of “sticking two fingers up to management” over the bristol incident."
Click to expand...

So you have never got drunk or used offensive language, or sped? So he is just like the majority of the public who have done things maybe they shouldn't have in their life.

How would the likes of George Best fared these days... sure he liked a drink!!
 
just yobs all of them, drunken yobs
 
tijuana taxi said:
About as innocent as George Davis
Click to expand...
George Davis was probably innocent of the robbery he was imprisoned for, in all likelihood stiched up by the police. Which is why the home office released him. The fact he went on to commit further crimes has no bearing on the innocence or guilt in that particular crime.
 
badlywornroy said:
Watch the video,
Click to expand...
No. There was a trial with a lot of evidence, including that video presented. You present a single piece out of the total evidence and suggest people form a judgment based on it alone.

That's not how our system of justice works, thankfully, for what should be blindingly obvious reasons.
 
cambsno said:
So you have never got drunk or used offensive language, or sped? So he is just like the majority of the public who have done things maybe they shouldn't have in their life.

How would the likes of George Best fared these days... sure he liked a drink!!
Click to expand...

Blimey ! That takes a giant leap equating the “majority of the public” with Ben Stokes having a punch-up outside a club

As for Georgie Best ‘bless him’ he was too busy boozing and shagging beauty queens to have the energy for a brawl.

Walk through many towns and cities on a weekend evening and the ‘yob culture’ has spilled out of the pubs & clubs onto the streets. This episode is another example of that.

Yes, I like most others have only seen part of the footage but I have an opinion just as you and others have an opposite opinion having seen no more than I have.

As for the Not Guilty verdict ? Well we know guilty people never walk away scott free do they ? :(
 
Last edited:
onomatopoeia said:
No. There was a trial with a lot of evidence, including that video presented. You present a single piece out of the total evidence and suggest people form a judgment based on it alone.

That's not how our system of justice works, thankfully, for what should be blindingly obvious reasons.
Click to expand...

I was thinking exactly the same
 
badlywornroy said:
As for the Not Guilty verdict ? Well we know guilty people never walk away scott free do they ? :(
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter... the court did not find him guilty if the offence so move on. Or, if people cant respect the decision of the courts, maybe we could do away with trials and just let the police make a decision at the scene and convict then!
 
onomatopoeia said:
No. There was a trial with a lot of evidence, including that video presented. You present a single piece out of the total evidence and suggest people form a judgment based on it alone.

That's not how our system of justice works, thankfully, for what should be blindingly obvious reasons.
Click to expand...

I suggest you and others are looking at this episode with ‘blinkers on’

This is a high profile top sportsman and yes he may not want to be but he is a ‘role model’ for my kids, your kids.

This is not an isolated incident, he has an history of yobbish behaviour and he does not have the excuse of youth to fall back on, he is 27 I believe.

All other top sportsman, celebrities, politicians etc in the public domain are held to higher standards than ‘johnny average’ who gets p***ed on a saturday evening and lets off steam.

The ECB need to come down hard on him and send a message to him and others.
 
cambsno said:
Doesn't matter... the court did not find him guilty if the offence so move on. Or, if people cant respect the decision of the courts, maybe we could do away with trials and just let the police make a decision at the scene and convict then!
Click to expand...

It matters to me.
 
I must say I couldn't give a monkeys cuff about the case, as folk have said this is just another beer fuelled fight in a city/town centre.
looking at his history he is not a very pleasant person and I hope the CCC disciplinary gives him a nice lengthy ban.
He certainly doesn't deserve to be representing the country at that level.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top