Stokes not guilty

[PinkDalek]

That's terrible news, for those who might be dropped to get him back in the Test side.

[BrummieDave]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-45182868

[mrbrightside]

Well - whaddya know.

You can get drunk, punch someone in a fight, laying them out unconscious on the road in a fall that could have killed them and get off. Hurrah !

[Howyoudoin]

Not really sure what you need to do to be found guilty of something these days.

Punch a couple of peoples lights out causing ABH and be videoed in the process from many different angles. Not guilty.

Be directly responsible for a child's death in hospital. Not guilty.

No wonder the police have all but given up.

Moderator Message:
Take care people. We do not know all the facts of the case. One cannot publicly state they were guilty.
Gryff

HYD

[SalvorHardin]

Well - whaddya know.

You can get drunk, punch someone in a fight, laying them out unconscious on the road in a fall that could have killed them and get off. Hurrah !

Alternatively your group is attacked by someone with a broken bottle so you retaliate. Being quite useful in a fight you land several punches to the surprise of the attacker. The attacker then backs off before advancing towards you in a threatening manner, so you hit him again. Then the attacker's mate returns with a metal bar so you hit him (not shown on the video). All of this comes under self-defence. Remember that the threshold for a successful criminal prosecution is "beyond all reasonable doubt".

The prosecution throws in some dodgy testimony about throwing a cigarette butt at a person when the video clearly shows that the butt was thrown a yard or two behind them (Stokes is an expert at throwing things; if he'd meant to hit someone at that range they'd have been hit). Compound the situation by not calling the gay couple as witnesses, despite basing a big part of your case around your claim that they were abused by Stokes.

Then your star witness (the bouncer) turns out to be a person with a facial tattoo, something which many people (including jury members?) associate with criminality and thus a lack of credibility (he is the sole claimant of homophobic abuse by Stokes).

The police then compound this by claiming that Stokes was drunk and out of control when the video they took after he was arrested shows someone who was neither. There's also sufficient doubt as to whether Stokes caused the more serious injury give that that person was kicked in the head by someone other than Stokes.

As to possibly killing someone with a punch, that's covered by the "eggshell skull rule" and it has no bearing upon whether the puncher is guilty or not.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eggshell_skull

[mrbrightside]

Well - whaddya know.

You can get drunk, punch someone in a fight, laying them out unconscious on the road in a fall that could have killed them and get off. Hurrah !

Alternatively your group is attacked by someone with a broken bottle so you retaliate. Being quite useful in a fight you land several punches to the surprise of the attacker.
<snip>

Many thanks. That was a more informed, useful, concise and lucid description of the legal issues surrounding this case than I have read/watched in N weeks of media coverage.

[SalvorHardin]

Many thanks. That was a more informed, useful, concise and lucid description of the legal issues surrounding this case than I have read/watched in N weeks of media coverage.

Thanks. I'm glad to have put my (ancient) Law degree to some use

The media loves to report most things nowadays in a sensational manner to grab people's attention. Here they had a criminal case with celebrity, violence and video of the events, so it sent them into overdrive. They reported everything the prosecution said as if it was a fact (not even an "alleged") and downplayed or even ignored anything to the contrary.

When the video emerged last year showing the bottle being used first it was clear to me, but not most journalists apparently, that self-defence stood a very good chance. That Ben Stokes clearly got the best of the fight and pursued the two Ryans isn't really an issue because it was self-defence against someone using a weapon (a more serious form of attack than fists).

If you attack someone with a weapon and they happen to be a bit tasty in a fight and give you a beating the law is generally on their side. Where attackers have been pursued and then seriously injured by their intended victims and the victim has been convicted, generally this involves grossly disproportionate violence by the intended victim in retaliation (weapons, torture, etc.).

Juries don't like to convict where it's clearly self-defence at the start and the attacker then gets a bit of a beating because they've picked on the wrong victim.

[mrbrightside]

Were you surprised that the two gay gentlemen weren't called for the defence now they've come out, confirming his side of events, and said 'He's our hero'.

[ I have a recurring nightmare where I am accused of a crime I didn't commit and taken apart on the stand ]

[SalvorHardin]

Were you surprised that the two gay gentlemen weren't called for the defence now they've come out, confirming his side of events, and said 'He's our hero'.

A bit of a surprise. The interview they gave on ITV West Country yesterday evening would have seriously damaged the case against Ben Stokes.

However, one of them did say that they left the scene because they were afraid and it's possible that since the definition of affray is causing others to fear for their safety because you are in a fight, the defence decided that it was best not to call them just in case the prosecution focused upon this point.

The defence already had a very strong case because the video clearly showed Ryan Ali starting the fight by using a weapon. It was no surprise to me that most TV stations left out this part of the video and concentrated on when Stokes started to fight back - people who relied on TV would not have seen Ali attack one of the gay couple with a bottle. That Stokes is very effective in a fight does not make him any more likely to be guilty than if he couldn't throw a punch (though many in the media seem to think that it should).

[Clitheroekid]

In view of what they had to say I find it surprising the gay couple weren't called for the defence - https://twitter.com/itvwestcountry/stat ... 6498692097

In fact, I'm surprised that in the light of this evidence the CPS even ran the prosecution at all. This may be one of those cases where someone is actually more at risk of prosecution simply because they're famous, in that the CPS may have felt there would have been accusations of favouritism had they not prosecuted.

[Howyoudoin]

Well - whaddya know.

You can get drunk, punch someone in a fight, laying them out unconscious on the road in a fall that could have killed them and get off. Hurrah !

Alternatively your group is attacked by someone with a broken bottle so you retaliate. Being quite useful in a fight you land several punches to the surprise of the attacker. The attacker then backs off before advancing towards you in a threatening manner, so you hit him again. Then the attacker's mate returns with a metal bar so you hit him (not shown on the video). All of this comes under self-defence. Remember that the threshold for a successful criminal prosecution is "beyond all reasonable doubt".

So the attacker/s used a broken bottle/metal bar against someone . . . and were still found not guilty for their part in this?


HYD

[GoSeigen]

So the attacker/s used a broken bottle/metal bar against someone . . . and were still found not guilty for their part in this?

Over the past two weeks my family have had an interaction with the police and have been bumbfounded at their rudeness, unaccountability and sheer incompetence. Consequently it is no surprise at all to me that they fail to get convictions, as shown in this case and the recent high-profile (Jonathan King) case screwed up by Surrey police.

Certainly for Stokes, they seem to have gone for the more serious charge of affray and failed to convict, when perhaps they could have secured a conviction on a more minor charge...


GS

[melonfool]

Well - whaddya know.

You can get drunk, punch someone in a fight, laying them out unconscious on the road in a fall that could have killed them and get off. Hurrah !

Alternatively your group is attacked by someone with a broken bottle so you retaliate. Being quite useful in a fight you land several punches to the surprise of the attacker. The attacker then backs off before advancing towards you in a threatening manner, so you hit him again. Then the attacker's mate returns with a metal bar so you hit him (not shown on the video). All of this comes under self-defence. Remember that the threshold for a successful criminal prosecution is "beyond all reasonable doubt".

So the attacker/s used a broken bottle/metal bar against someone . . . and were still found not guilty for their part in this?


HYD

Have they been prosecuted then?

Mel

[SalvorHardin]

So the attacker/s used a broken bottle/metal bar against someone . . . and were still found not guilty for their part in this?

Yes. My guess is that it is because the charge was affray. To be guilty of affray the prosecution had to prove that the fight made others fear for their safety. So if the jury decided that no third party "of reasonable firmness" feared for their safety they had to say not guilty for everyone, even those who used weapons. Here's the relevant law, section 3 of the Public Order Act 1986:

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).

(3)For the purposes of this section a threat cannot be made by the use of words alone.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/section/3

I've kept a close eye on this case ever since Ben Stokes was arrested, mostly because cricket is my favourite sport (and the one I was best at). Of the people I know offline, everyone with a legal background said that Stokes was not guilty because of self-defence (for us the video showing Ali attacking with the bottle was decisive), the ex-copper said guilty (at least six months jail) and everyone else was split roughly 50/50.

[zico]

Interesting case and I was surprised both by the initial charge brought of affray and by the verdict.

The full video certainly puts a different slant on it with the initial fracas (can I say "fracas") clearly started by the others, but Stokes clearly wins the fight and there's then about 30 seconds of the other parties backing away with Stokes advancing towards them and hitting them. It seems a bit odd to be able to claim self-defence when you have to pursue people to exercise your right of self-defence, and Stokes's friend (who was also involved in the fight) clearly doesn't feel the others pose any threat at this stage as he was heard telling Stokes not to keep attacking them. There surely must be some kind of time limit for someone to exercise self-defence after they've been attacked and the attacker is retreating. Personally I'd say 5-10 seconds is only natural, but anything beyond that gets increasingly indefensible. How long do others think someone is entitled to "self-defend" against someone retreating before they become the aggressor themselves and responsible for any injury they cause? (Question relates to UK, I know things are somewhat different in the US!)

Out of interest, can anyone remember a current celebrity ever being found guilty by a jury of anything? (By current celebrity I mean not someone who was famous many years ago such as Stuart Hall and Rolf Harris.)
Cipriani has today pleaded guilty to assault to magistrates and has apologised for his actions, so he doesn't count.

I remember Lee Bowyer being found not guilty, despite blood on his jacket matching the victim's blood. His defence was that the victim had bled on the pavement and he'd fallen in exactly the same place. This seemed just a tad unlikely, but the jury bought it.

[zico]

Thought I'd add this question here, rather than start a new thread, as it's (kind of) related.
Apparently the ECB may now be charging Stokes with bringing cricket into disrepute. I had a quick look on Google for the ECB Disciplinary Code and found the following link.

https://www.hantscl.com/administration/ecb-model-rules/

Apparently players "shall not use crude and/or abusive language (known as “sledging”)" - as if such a thing could ever possibly happen in cricket - and attempting to (or successfully) intimidating or assault fellow players and/or umpires during a match is also somewhat frowned upon.

However, all the examples relate to behaviour during a cricket match. There's nothing in it about what cricketers can or can't do when going about their daily lives outside of cricket.

Some people watching the video may well think Stokes brought himself into disrepute (and some may think he's a superhero), but I can't imagine a single people thinking along the lines of "I am shocked beyond belief to discover that a cricketer consumed a large amount of alcohol and got into a fight, and because I've seen this, I now think that cricket is a disreputable sport which I will never watch again".

Stokes may have broken the bit in his England test cricket contract that says "don't punch anyone, and if you do, for God's sake make sure nobody is filming it" but that's not disrepute either, that's just breaking a term in your contract.

[SalvorHardin]

It seems a bit odd to be able to claim self-defence when you have to pursue people to exercise your right of self-defence, and Stokes's friend (who was also involved in the fight) clearly doesn't feel the others pose any threat at this stage as he was heard telling Stokes not to keep attacking them. There surely must be some kind of time limit for someone to exercise self-defence after they've been attacked and the attacker is retreating. Personally I'd say 5-10 seconds is only natural, but anything beyond that gets increasingly indefensible. How long do others think someone is entitled to "self-defend" against someone retreating before they become the aggressor themselves and responsible for any injury they cause? (Question relates to UK, I know things are somewhat different in the US!)

What constitutes self-defence is debatable. Alex Hales may have considered that there was no threat after the attacker backed off but this doesn't mean that Ben Stokes thought the same (Hales had kicked the attacker in the head; Stokes may not have realised this). Also the attacker retreated by moving backwards then forwards then backwards whilst making threatening gestures towards Stokes. If he was getting out of there why didn't he just turn and run?

If I'm Stokes' barrister I'm going to bang on at every opportunity about Ryan Ali starting the fight by using a weapon and play the first few seconds of the video at every opportunity. Not his fists, a bottle. A weapon is a different order of violence. Juries are going to be more lenient about what constitutes reasonable force in self-defence where the person uses their fists against against an attacker who has used a weapon and is now backing off having bitten off more than they can chew.

And the jury, despite the judge's comments, is probably going to wonder why the prosecution didn't call the gay couple given all that they had claimed about Stokes' behaviour towards them. Stokes later on knocks out Ryan Hale, who had returned to the scene with a metal bar (not a peaceful act) which is another example of fists vs. weapon. Here's a summary of Stokes' statements:

“They were complete strangers. We knew that they were prepared to use weapons that could do serious injury and I feared they could have other weapons with them.”

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/0 ... ier-armed/

Stuff like this is enough to create sufficient doubt about his guilt, bearing in mind that the standard for conviction is "beyond all reasonable doubt".

[PinkDalek]

… Apparently the ECB may now be charging Stokes with bringing cricket into disrepute. I had a quick look on Google for the ECB Disciplinary Code and found the following link.

https://www.hantscl.com/administration/ecb-model-rules/

Apparently players "shall not use crude and/or abusive language (known as “sledging”)" - as if such a thing could ever possibly happen in cricket - and attempting to (or successfully) intimidating or assault fellow players and/or umpires during a match is also somewhat frowned upon.

However, all the examples relate to behaviour during a cricket match. There's nothing in it about what cricketers can or can't do when going about their daily lives outside of cricket. ...

Hard to find, I agree. Aggers talks about the [ECB's] Cricket Discipline Commission but I've only found their Regulations so far, where there's no reference to disrepute but I think that's because it relates to procedures, rather than ECB’s Rules, Regulations and Directives.

https://pulse-static-files.s3.amazonaws ... n_2018.pdf

[Alaric]

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

I don't know whether footballers count as celebrities, but what of the several that have been found guilty of rape or sexual assault?

[PinkDalek]

Ronaldo and Messi - tens of millions in tax evasion.

A pissy fine (to them) and a 2 year suspended sentence.

Were they tried by Jury?