Stokes not guilty

[zico]

To my mind this case clearly shows up the weaknesses of our adverserial justice system. The two gay guys were impartial observers who saw both the lead-up and the fight so were in an ideal position to help the jury find out the truth of the matter, but neither side called them. That's because our justice system isn't actually interested in the truth, but more about which side can make the best case.

[Pendrainllwyn]

Out of interest, can anyone remember a current celebrity ever being found guilty by a jury of anything?

Bill Cosby was a big one recently

Pendrainllwyn

[Pendrainllwyn]

Just seen the conditions. Bill doesn't count.

Oscar Pistorius? Although it took a couple of goes ...

[Clitheroekid]

Out of interest, can anyone remember a current celebrity ever being found guilty by a jury of anything?

Well I suppose it depends how you define a current celebrity - by definition they can't be current if they've been convicted - but there are these for a start - https://screenrant.com/british-stars-ro ... il-crimes/

[PinkDalek]

Just seen the conditions ... Oscar Pistorius? Although it took a couple of goes ...

I’m unsure which conditions you mean but neither the trial nor the appeals involved a Jury, which was one of the follow-up questions by Zico which included “Out of interest, can anyone remember a current celebrity ever being found guilty by a jury of anything?”.

Seems juries were abolished in South Africa during the apartheid years:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_o ... _Pistorius

Stuart Hall’s case involved a jury. I’m sure there are plenty more but I don’t follow these cases with any interest.

Edit: Missed CK’s link above but don’t know how many of those cases involved juries (nor do I recognise many of the names). Given that the vile Savile heads the list, clearly not all were jury cases and one or more involved no trial at all.

[mrbrightside]

Fascinating, detailed, informed analysis of the Ben Stokes case. Long read but well worth it...

https://thesecretbarrister.com/2018/08/ ... ent-wrong/

[jackdaww]

from what i have seen and heard , the man seems to me to be a cowardly thug .

as far as i know stokes has made no statement accepting he could be in any at fault , nor the ECB , no remorse or contrition , its just business as usual .

do they want to send the message that its ok to get drunk and beat up people probably a lot smaller and less powerful than a test fast bowler?

will there be a ECB disciplinary hearing ? what is their role and responsibilty in advising these young players?

for me its appalling , i can hardly bear to watch any more. ( after a lifetime watching test cricket ).

[gryffron]

from what i have seen and heard , the man seems to me to be a cowardly thug .

Then I can only assume you haven't read any further than the sensationalist half truth media reports.

Stokes said he intervened to stop two bullies picking on some vulnerable people. Later said bullies come at him with a weapon and he disarmed them (and beat the crap out of them).
The doorman said Stokes was abusing the 2 gay guys. They explicitly said he was not, and called Stokes "their hero".
The police said Stokes was drunk and out of control. Their own bodycam footage clearly shows he was neither.

So who is telling the truth? Probably none of the above is the entire truth. But a jury who listened to a week's worth of accumulated evidence found him not guilty.

Gryff

[zico]

Interesting bit from the blog about self-defence.

The question here is subjective – i.e. did the defendant genuinely believe he needed to use force in self-defence? It does not matter if the defendant was in fact mistaken, as long as he believed that at the time.

Given this definition, I'm amazed anyone ever gets convicted if they claim self-defence as they could use the logic "I must have feared for my safety, otherwise I wouldn't have hit him/her" and you'd think any half-decent lawyer could persuade a jury they couldn't possibly be sure the defendant believed otherwise.
I remember Jeremy Guscott successfully claiming self-defence because he feared for his safety and believed he had no other option than to jump out of his car and break the ankle of a much smaller and older man.

I was amused to find that as a result of this case, Stokes may not be welcome in Australia's Big Bash cricket! Surely the opposite should be the case.

[jackdaww]

from what i have seen and heard , the man seems to me to be a cowardly thug .

Then I can only assume you haven't read any further than the sensationalist half truth media reports.

Stokes said he intervened to stop two bullies picking on some vulnerable people. Later said bullies come at him with a weapon and he disarmed them (and beat the crap out of them).
The doorman said Stokes was abusing the 2 gay guys. They explicitly said he was not, and called Stokes "their hero".
The police said Stokes was drunk and out of control. Their own bodycam footage clearly shows he was neither.

So who is telling the truth? Probably none of the above is the entire truth. But a jury who listened to a week's worth of accumulated evidence found him not guilty.

Gryff

============================

i am not going on what i have read - its what i have SEEN on the video footages , which i assume were' not faked.

i understand stokes admitted to drinking a large amount - which i can believe - some people can - and still appear normal - but to conclude the alcohol is not a factor is mistaken in my view.

[gryffron]

its what i have SEEN on the video footages , which i assume were' not faked.

Ah yes. The cleverly edited video footage shown on TV which shows Stokes battering Ryan Ali. But somehow omits the footage only a few seconds earlier from the same camera which shows Ali hitting someone with a glass bottle.
http://www.espn.co.uk/cricket/story/_/i ... okes-fight

The media were also very quick to report the bouncer's allegations of homophobic abuse by Stokes. (Denied by the victims)

Half the truth and the whole truth really can look very different.

And BTW, I'm not a cricket fan so I have no axe to grind here. I don't claim I know the whole truth. But am happy to accept that our courts are much better than most. And WAY better than the press. So if the courts say he didn't do it, then I say let the guy get on with his life.

Gryff

[Gengulphus]

Given this definition, I'm amazed anyone ever gets convicted if they claim self-defence as they could use the logic "I must have feared for my safety, otherwise I wouldn't have hit him/her" and you'd think any half-decent lawyer could persuade a jury they couldn't possibly be sure the defendant believed otherwise.

No. That "I must have feared for my safety, otherwise I wouldn't have hit him/her" logic is an argument that the defendant did fear from their safety from the premises that they did hit the person and that they are not the sort of person who would ever hit someone if they didn't fear for their safety. Assuming that there's no real doubt that they did hit the person, as in this case, that's basically arguing that they're not guilty from the premise that they're not the sort of person to be guilty. Not saying it definitely won't work, but I think the defendant would require both very good character witnesses and quite a lot of good luck to get off on that one...

And it would be rather more straightforward to give "I did fear for my safety" evidence and just use "therefore I am not guilty, despite the fact that I hit him/her" logic! I would expect that evidence to be tested in court; I would also expect that some defendants who hadn't actually feared for their safety might be able to say "I did fear for my safety" and stand up to it being tested in court convincingly enough to use claim self-defence successfully. But it's not as easy as all that to lie convincingly in court...

I remember Jeremy Guscott successfully claiming self-defence because he feared for his safety and believed he had no other option than to jump out of his car and break the ankle of a much smaller and older man.

I don't know that case or any of the evidence in it, but having once been in a confined space with a significantly smaller man approaching aggressively, I know from first-hand experience that one can fear for one's safety in such a situation... My reaction then was to get out of the confined space as quickly and as forcefully as possible - forcefully in order to give the other party as little chance as possible of preventing me from getting out.

Gengulphus

[jackdaww]

the court found stokes innocent .

the ECB have said nothing since.

stokes has said nothing since .

so am i going to apologise for implying stokes is a nasty piece of work and thinking the ECB is condoning that sort of behaviour ?

not a chance.

[Gengulphus]

from what i have seen and heard , the man seems to me to be a cowardly thug .

Then I can only assume you haven't read any further than the sensationalist half truth media reports.

Stokes said he intervened to stop two bullies picking on some vulnerable people. Later said bullies come at him with a weapon and he disarmed them (and beat the crap out of them).
The doorman said Stokes was abusing the 2 gay guys. They explicitly said he was not, and called Stokes "their hero".
The police said Stokes was drunk and out of control. Their own bodycam footage clearly shows he was neither.

So who is telling the truth? Probably none of the above is the entire truth. But a jury who listened to a week's worth of accumulated evidence found him not guilty.

Gryff

============================

i am not going on what i have read - its what i have SEEN on the video footages , which i assume were' not faked.

i understand stokes admitted to drinking a large amount - which i can believe - some people can - and still appear normal - but to conclude the alcohol is not a factor is mistaken in my view.

Exactly who has concluded that alcohol was not a factor? Or are you just saying that anyone who has is mistaken, on the off-chance that there is someone around here who has concluded that, without actually saying it?

Gengulphus

[Howyoudoin]

It pains me to say it but I think the Police are an absolute shambles at the moment. And that's coming from someone who has serving officers in his family.

Whoever decided that Stokes and Co should be charged with 'Affray' rather than a lesser charge should be strung up for wasting nearly a year of time of all involved.

And then, just this morning, we have some senior police officer on LBC trying to justify why they are introducing new laws to ensure that drivers will no longer be given any leeway on the speed imit. In other words, it used to be fairly common knowledge that you'd get about 10% leeway, i.e. in a 30mph zone you can go to 33mph without getting collared etc etc. But they want to take that down to the limit so that if you doing 31mph, you get done. Yeah I know, pathetic.

Listen, Mr Police Chief, when figures are coming out saying that it's not really worth people reporting that they have had their car stolen, been burgled or assaulted etc, because the police haven't got the resources to deal with it, do you really think that being more stringent on speeding laws is going to enamour the general public to the police?

I've never used this term before because I've always found it crass and disingenuous but . . .

GO AND CATCH SOME REAL CRIMINALS!

And when you do catch them, make sure you charge them with something that the courts can actually prosecute them for huh?

Idiots.

HYD

[Gengulphus]

It pains me to say it but I think the Police are an absolute shambles at the moment. And that's coming from someone who has serving officers in his family.

Whoever decided that Stokes and Co should be charged with 'Affray' rather than a lesser charge should be strung up for wasting nearly a year of time of all involved.

I'd have said that the CPS is at least as much to blame for that time-wasting as the police.

And then, just this morning, we have some senior police officer on LBC trying to justify why they are introducing new laws to ensure that drivers will no longer be given any leeway on the speed imit. In other words, it used to be fairly common knowledge that you'd get about 10% leeway, i.e. in a 30mph zone you can go to 33mph without getting collared etc etc. But they want to take that down to the limit so that if you doing 31mph, you get done. Yeah I know, pathetic.

New laws? Or new guidelines about when to charge and prosecute people under existing laws?

By the way, neither of those possibilities gives me a good impression of the common sense of the senior police officer concerned - it's just that I'd like to know which particular bad impression to be left with...

Gengulphus

[jackdaww]

agreed on speed limit preciseness - bit off topic though.

i think a much bigger issue is the speed limits themselves .

i live on a rural lane crossroads - speed limit is 60mph .

many busy places in towns of all sizes have 30 limits , where 20 would be sensible.

i would like to see a BLANKET limit of say 45mph EVERYWHERE , unless signs say otherwise.

[Howyoudoin]

And then, just this morning, we have some senior police officer on LBC trying to justify why they are introducing new laws to ensure that drivers will no longer be given any leeway on the speed imit. In other words, it used to be fairly common knowledge that you'd get about 10% leeway, i.e. in a 30mph zone you can go to 33mph without getting collared etc etc. But they want to take that down to the limit so that if you doing 31mph, you get done. Yeah I know, pathetic.

New laws? Or new guidelines about when to charge and prosecute people under existing laws?

By the way, neither of those possibilities gives me a good impression of the common sense of the senior police officer concerned - it's just that I'd like to know which particular bad impression to be left with...

Gengulphus

Apologies Gengulphus, I don't know if these are new laws or new guidelines. I haven't driven a car for many years but seeing as my sleepy little area of Essex has witnessed in the last year, two murders, one acid attack and burglaries that are off the scale, I really don't give a tinkers toss about speeding fines.

HYD

[melonfool]

Any one who thinks strict adherence to speeding laws does not affect murder rates needs to read Freakononmics.

I can't see how the limit being the actual limit is a problem, but then, I stick to the limit.

Mel

[Howyoudoin]

Any one who thinks strict adherence to speeding laws does not affect murder rates needs to read Freakononmics.

I can't see how the limit being the actual limit is a problem, but then, I stick to the limit.

Mel

When Police numbers have been cut back to the bleeding knuckle, it's a case of priorities.

My sleepy little area of Essex has witnessed, in the last year, two murders, one acid attack and burglaries that are off the scale.

The question is, would I rather that Police chase motorists who are doing 32mph in a 30mph zone or would I rather them chase a guy who has just attacked two people with a hammer in the high street?

I know my answer.

HYD