• The forum upgrades are now largely complete.
    Please read this thread for more details.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.

Hales and Stokes

Status
Not open for further replies.

GordonMuchallNo1Fan said:
Ali says he does not recall going towards Alex Hales with a bottle but accepts that's what the footage shows. He also accepts it looks like he struck Barry with it. He does not believe that is the moment Stokes got involved though #BenStokes
Click to expand...

Ali got his head stoved in so has a plausible excuse to have selective memory. Stokes didn’t and claims he wasn’t pissed so the selective memory stuff doesn’t carry as much weight. Although I think Stokes defence is as good as safcs last year he might still get off. OJ did
 
rentaghost said:
Ali got his head stoved in so has a plausible excuse to have selective memory. Stokes didn’t and claims he wasn’t pissed so the selective memory stuff doesn’t carry as much weight. Although I think Stokes defence is as good as safcs last year he might still get off. OJ did
Click to expand...
My gut feel is that there isn't enough evidence to prosecute - possibly why they went down the affray route rather than the GBH/ABH charge that was originally speculated about. Ultimately they are charging/trying Stokes and Ali for having a fight in public, rather than trying either one of them for having injured the other in a specific way. IIRC Woodgate was convicted of the "lesser charge" of affray back in the day when they were charged for assaulting Sarfraz Najeib
 
Surely the person starting the fight is guilty of affray. Stokes has admitted to fearing for his and his "friends safety"that should be an adequate defence to a charge of affray, shouldn't it?
 
maghater said:
Surely the person starting the fight is guilty of affray. Stokes has admitted to fearing for his and his "friends safety"that should be an adequate defence to a charge of affray, shouldn't it?
Click to expand...

Yes he did but what do you expect him to say? The jury has to decide whether the evidence supports that or supports that he was pissed up, agitated and spoiling for a fight. I don't think any of the evidence other than Stokes own words point towards that personally. The minute the gay lads testimony wasn't used in support of Stokes suggested he was in trouble IMO.
 
rentaghost said:
Yes he did but what do you expect him to say? The jury has to decide whether the evidence supports that or supports that he was pissed up, agitated and spoiling for a fight. I don't think any of the evidence other than Stokes own words point towards that personally. The minute the gay lads testimony wasn't used in support of Stokes suggested he was in trouble IMO.
Click to expand...
Agree the absence of the gay lads is a puzzle, especially as one of them was quoted in a national daily as calling Stokes a hero. Affray is supposed to be if someone uses violence or threats to such an extent that a person fears for their safety. Therefor if you start the fight you are indeed committing affray.If you respond to this attack surely it cannot be affray as by starting the fight one would assume that the perpetrator was not frightened at the time. ABH or GBH would probably be more appropriate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WCC
maghater said:
Agree the absence of the gay lads is a puzzle, especially as one of them was quoted in a national daily as calling Stokes a hero. Affray is supposed to be if someone uses violence or threats to such an extent that a person fears for their safety. Therefor if you start the fight you are indeed committing affray.If you respond to this attack surely it cannot be affray as by starting the fight one would assume that the perpetrator was not frightened at the time. ABH or GBH would probably be more appropriate.
Click to expand...
Maybe seen as unreliable witnesses for speaking the papers about evidence before the trial?
 
brandon said:
Are you saying Hales inflicted the broken eye socket?

If so, I think that falls under GBH or ABH and as I understand it, they are only enforceable if the victim wishes to press charges.



Because that’s what the law allows. The judge quite clearly knows the law inside out and deemed that the prosecution case against him wasn’t worthy of gaining a conviction. To save people’s time, he made the call. Do you think you know better than the judge?
Click to expand...

Deferential bollocks. There's CCTV of him rolling around on the floor fighting with Stokes and there are witnesses who say he was armed with a bottle and metal pole.

If justice was about 'saving time's they could have saved everyone weeks trying three pissed arseholes who got into a fight and hurt nobody but eachother.
 
smoker said:
Deferential bollocks. There's CCTV of him rolling around on the floor fighting with Stokes and there are witnesses who say he was armed with a bottle and metal pole.

If justice was about 'saving time's they could have saved everyone weeks trying three pissed arseholes who got into a fight and hurt nobody but eachother.
Click to expand...

Mate, go and do some research on the charge of affray - being caught on CCTV fighting doesn’t prove affray.

As for the saving time part - I couldn’t agree more.
 
Summing up going on now.

Stokes barrister has told the jury they must be SURE Stokes was NOT acting in self defence in order to convict.

I don't see how they can possibly find that it wasn't self defence.

Be interesting to hear the judges summing up.
 
brandon said:
Summing up going on now.

Stokes barrister has told the jury they must be SURE Stokes was NOT acting in self defence in order to convict.

I don't see how they can possibly find that it wasn't self defence.

Be interesting to hear the judges summing up.
Click to expand...

Because he chased after unarmed people in the street and smashed them unconscious? Because the prosecution did a really good job of putting Stokes across as a pissed off drunk that was spoiling for a fight in the lead up to the incident? The jury don't have to be absolutely 100% certain as most crimes aren't - just beyond reasonable doubt. On what I have heard there's easily enough to convict but my experience on a jury tells me anything could happen. He could get off but he will be a very lucky boy if he does.
 
rentaghost said:
Because he chased after unarmed people in the street and smashed them unconscious? Because the prosecution did a really good job of putting Stokes across as a pissed off drunk that was spoiling for a fight in the lead up to the incident? The jury don't have to be absolutely 100% certain as most crimes aren't - just beyond reasonable doubt. On what I have heard there's easily enough to convict but my experience on a jury tells me anything could happen. He could get off but he will be a very lucky boy if he does.
Click to expand...
complicated by the fact that one of the poor innocents he knocked unconsciouses in the dock with him
 
brandon said:
Summing up going on now.

Stokes barrister has told the jury they must be SURE Stokes was NOT acting in self defence in order to convict.

I don't see how they can possibly find that it wasn't self defence.

Be interesting to hear the judges summing up.
Click to expand...
Seems a fair and balanced assumption. :lol:

rentaghost said:
And less complicated by one of the guys he sparked unconscious being declared innocent of all charges.
Click to expand...
This muddys those assumptions somewhat.
 
brandon said:
BULLSHIT.

The PROSECUTION showed CCTV evidence that BOTH Ali and Hale had bottles, held by the neck.



Aye, so just the 99% certain then :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Hale hasn't done a thing. Even Stokes own defence team aren't making any reference or mileage about Hale having a bottle. Its possible he had a bottle and was drinking in the street initially but he certainly didn't use it at any stage. Hale never threw a punch in anger towards anyone, he just had his lights knocked out by Stokes while not defending himself. Ali did have a bottle and did approach Stokes with it initially but I don't see how sparking Hale out can be seen as self defence. Stokes has a top lawyer though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top