Stokes Arrested

[Moonsorrow999]

Ridiculous. Guilty of being a first class ****.

 

[fredfertang]

Proof beyond reasonable doubt is a heavy burden for the prosecution to bear, for which Stokes should be grateful from what I've seen

 

[Starfighter]

A teensy bit surprised really.

Guilty of being a first class ****.

This is certainly true.

 

[sledger]

Proof beyond reasonable doubt is a heavy burden for the prosecution to bear, for which Stokes should be grateful from what I've seen

Absolutely right.

 

[a massive zebra]

Very disappointing result. I had hoped we might be able to enjoy some temporary relief from seeing this loutish chav on the cricket field.

 

[Gnske]

So no one is guilty.

I like this happy ending tbh.

 

[StephenZA]

What is the legal definition of affray?

I suppose he did not cause terror for any of the public beyond his yobbish attitude.

 

[Spikey]

no-surprise that the english got something wrong again

 

[fredfertang]

Very disappointing result. I had hoped we might be able to enjoy some temporary relief from seeing this loutish chav on the cricket field.

Will be interesting to see what the ECB now do - not seen a central contract, obviously, but I'm assuming there must be provisions in it about bringing the game into disrepute and he's surely guilty of that, on the balance of probabilities (and indeed beyond reasonable doubt as well - international sportsman smoking outside night club after consuming alcohol works for me on that even without any sort of contretemps)

 

[sledger]

What is the legal definition of affray?

I suppose he did not cause terror for any of the public beyond his yobbish attitude.

I think it was accepted that he committed the offence, it was just whether he could successfully invoke the defence of self-defence to alleviate his guilt. Jury couldn't rule out of the possibility that he was acting to defend himself, ergo case not proved beyond reasonable doubt/not guilty.

 

[LegionOfBrad]

Will be interesting to see what the ECB now do - not seen a central contract, obviously, but I'm assuming there must be provisions in it about bringing the game into disrepute and he's surely guilty of that, on the balance of probabilities (and indeed beyond reasonable doubt as well - international sportsman smoking outside night club after consuming alcohol works for me on that even without any sort of contretemps)

He'll be back in the team with time served (thought probably sit out the TB test)

 

[StephenZA]

I think it was accepted that he committed the offence, it was just whether he could successfully invoke the defence of self-defence to alleviate his guilt. Jury couldn't rule out of the possibility that he was acting to defend himself, ergo case not proved beyond reasonable doubt/not guilty.

May be my obtuseness, but if acting in self-defence then it could not have been affray? Else he commited the crime of affray and the self-defence argument would be a mitigating circumstance in sentencing?

.... but honestly I don't care enough to go down this rabbit hole.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I wonder if, were the trial held north of the border, if the jury would've returned a "not proven" verdict.

Which, as a Scottish lawyer whose name currently escapes me once observed, effectively means "not guilty but don't do it again."

 

[Jack1]

Farce imo, very very lucky

He was probably on trial for the wrong thing. Attempted murder he possibly could have been found guilty for. Affray is a weird one.

 

[Jack1]

Will be interesting to see what the ECB now do - not seen a central contract, obviously, but I'm assuming there must be provisions in it about bringing the game into disrepute and he's surely guilty of that, on the balance of probabilities (and indeed beyond reasonable doubt as well - international sportsman smoking outside night club after consuming alcohol works for me on that even without any sort of contretemps)

He will be straight back in. One rule for Stokes, One rule for Broad, One rule for Pietersen and so on. ECB and their backwards logic is hilarious. Such a weirdly run national side tbh.

 

[sledger]

May be my obtuseness, but if acting in self-defence then it could not have been affray? Else he commited the crime of affray and the self-defence argument would be a mitigating circumstance in sentencing?

.... but honestly I don't care enough to go down this rabbit hole.

Self-defence is a complete defence, so if you successfully argue it you're off the hook, even if prima facie you have committed the offence, as appeared to be the case here.

 

[sledger]

Farce imo, very very lucky

He was probably on trial for the wrong thing. Attempted murder he possibly could have been found guilty for. Affray is a weird one.

I beg your pardon, but you do not know what you are talking about.

 

[Engle]

I wonder if, were the trial held north of the border, if the jury would've returned a "not proven" verdict.

Which, as a Scottish lawyer whose name currently escapes me once observed, effectively means "not guilty but don't do it again."

Or to put it another way, he got off ' Scot free '

 

[S.Kennedy]

It was a botched prosecution. Affray implies danger to innocent bystanders. As can be seen, the only people present were the six drunks who were basically a danger to only themselves. Also Hales not being on trial undermined prosecution case. Waste of time. Waste of tax. Waste of energy.

If the ECB don't hammer him, the Aussies are going to say, ''hang on, we hammered the Sandpaper cheats for basically cheating at sport'' and they'd have a valid point.

 

[sledger]

It was a botched prosecution. Affray implies danger to innocent bystanders. As can be seen, the only people present were the six drunks who were basically a danger to only themselves. Also Hales not being on trial undermined prosecution case. Waste of time. Waste of tax. Waste of energy.

If the ECB don't hammer him, the Aussies are going to say, ''hang on, we hammered the Sandpaper cheats for basically cheating at sport'' and they'd have a valid point.

No it doesn't.