Since I have nothing better to do this morning, and since we suddenly have loads of experts on English criminal law on here, I'll outline the position re: self-defence in an attempt to keep the dire posts to a minimum. So here goes.
In the UK you are allowed to use force to defend yourself if you believe there is a threat to you or to people around you or to your property, and that the use of force is necessary to neutralise that threat.
There does not need to be any actual threat, you just have to genuinely believe there is.
The level of force you use to defend yourself from the threat (whether real or imaginary), however, must be proportionate (i.e. not excessive) to the threat as you perceive it to be. So in other words, the more serious the threat, the greater level of force you will be entitled to use.
Once the threat has been neutralised, the use of force must stop. If there is no threat and you continue to use force, you are no longer acting in defence, but are in fact the aggressor.
However, you do not have to wait to be attacked in order to use self defence. Pre-emptive strikes are allowed, so you can "hit first" and still be defending yourself.
Also, whilst the level of force you use must be proportionate to the level of threat, you are not expected to weigh your actions to a nicety, and the fact that you may have acted in the "heat of the moment" will be taken into account when making any determination about this.
Anyway, applying all this to the Stokes situation, Stokes has used a pretty high level of force to someone who appeared to be retreating from him (i.e. no longer a threat). This would suggest Stokes' conduct was unlawful.
The only way he will successfully be able to argue his way out of this on the basis of self defence is if he can convince the court that he genuinely believed the retreating guy to be a serious threat to him at the moment he punched his lights out. Same also for the kicks.
