Not guilty!

[Comeback_Kenwyne]

I read a few days before the start the CPS asked to add ABH. That's add not instead of.

Yes, but I thought they needed the victim to press charges for ABH?

I find it strange that the prosecution alleged Stokes mocked a gay couple - yet failed to call them as witnesses.

I also find it strange that the defence alleged Stokes was windmilling because of homophobic abuse towards the gay couple - yet failed to call them as witnesses.

What's interesting about this is that now I've read up on affray and the legal definition, then they may have been a liability that his defence clearly didn't require.

As in - on one level they could add to the case, because they could back up the self-defence bit. But that would have been a better (and Stokes only) defence had been charged with common assault causing actual bodily harm - or something like that.

As it was, the defence - for both Ali and Stokes - seem to have relied on the fact that the CPS hadn't got its ducks in a row to convict them of affray, because no reasonable person would have feared for its safety. Well, perhaps Stokes' defence lawyers reasoned that the gay couples - if they said they were scared for themselves - may have given the CPS some ammo to stick this on both Stokes and Ali. Maybe the bloody CPS should have called them?!

Either way, he's off. He's f***ing lucky to be tbh. Not even a caution now - which puts him actually better off than you or I, had we been in a similar situation. How you can get off with a clean bill of health when you smash someone's eye socket in, talk nonsense about not being drunk in court is utterly beyond me. But his lawyers have outwitted the CPS and he's won.

Or sorts of course, because he'll be sore as hell about the Ashes. It's right he missed them though - he deserves some punishment for this. The ECB would be going OTT to add more on top of it now - he's done his time.

 

[smoker]

The defendants were all on trial individually and the gay couple being scared of being glassed by Ali would not have counted against Stokes.

Stokes wasn't 'lucky' at all. If it comes across as such it's because you've been reading too much of the abridged, sensationalised reportage or failed to educate yourself on the law. He had a perfectly solid defence which was he was acting in defence of his friend and acquaintances and didn't cause anyone of reasonable firmness to fear for their safety.

 

[Comeback_Kenwyne]

The defendants were all on trial individually and the gay couple being scared of being glassed by Ali would not have counted against Stokes.

Stokes wasn't 'lucky' at all. If it comes across as such it's because you've been reading too much of the abridged, sensationalised reportage or failed to educate yourself on the law. He had a perfectly solid defence which was he was acting in defence of his friend and acquaintances and didn't cause anyone of reasonable firmness to fear for their safety.

He's lucky in the sense that nobody put him and him alone in the dock for ABH rather than affray.

Lucky in the sense that his co-defendants for affray seemed to have passed up the chance to press such charges.

 

[brandon]

Goes back to @brandon repeated points about the definition of affray.

But Brandon - you felt he was guilty too, no? I mean - he's absolutely guilty of ABH, that is clear as mud. So he should be very bloody thankful that Ali and Hale decided not to press charges.

I don't think any other question can have been answered "no".

Either way, the CPS are f***ing idiots.

No, I didn’t feel he was guilty of affray no. Not on the information that I knew.

I felt they’d find him guilty though, based on the biased reporting of the case by the media - we now however know this to have been largely misleading at best and absolutely disgusting journalism at worst.

I find it strange that the prosecution alleged Stokes mocked a gay couple - yet failed to call them as witnesses.

I also find it strange that the defence alleged Stokes was windmilling because of homophobic abuse towards the gay couple - yet failed to call them as witnesses.

There is clear CCTV footage of Stokes e

There is clear CCTV footage of Stokes escorting O’Connor and Barry away from the violence. That footage was shown to the court, however barely anywhere has it been mentioned by the press. Which tells me two things, firstly, it highlights how shit and how one-sided the media have been on reporting this case, as tha

*as that for me is a massive piece of evidence in determining Stokes is not guilty affray.

Which brings me to secondly, most importantly, that is the key factor I believe in proving his innocence to the jury. He was caught on CCTV PROTECTING people.

So, in summary, if the defence have video evidence of Stokes doing what he said he was doing - protecting people (from a homophobic attack) then it’s likely it was more than enough of a defence without the need of Barry or O’Connor to be put through the rigmarole of being witnesses.

 

[smoker]

He's lucky in the sense that nobody put him and him alone in the dock for ABH rather than affray.

Lucky in the sense that his co-defendants for affray seemed to have passed up the chance to press such charges.

No he f***ing isn't. ABH requires a complainant and unlawful application of force, neither of which existed in these circumstances.

If these two idiots had pressed ABH charges it would have been thrown out in hours when it became apparent they were active participants in the fight, were armed and hassling a gay couple.

 

[Bri]

Yes, but I thought they needed the victim to press charges for ABH?

I have no idea what's what in this field. But what I wrote was as it was reported by the DT.

 

[Comeback_Kenwyne]

No he f***ing isn't. ABH requires a complainant and unlawful application of force, neither of which existed in these circumstances.

If these two idiots had pressed ABH charges it would have been thrown out in hours when it became apparent they were active participants in the fight, were armed and hassling a gay couple.

Which is why they didn't do it.

But I'm not having reasonable force. The first guy maybe, but not the second guy backing away - bollocks. Common assault at minimum. You can't bray people like that - if you did it, you'd get a caution for assault, minimum. He hasn't even got that thanks to the CPS's desperation to land him on something bigger.

Frankly, despite the popular wisdom on here, I think a fair few of us would have got worse than a caution. Yes, fights go on all the time and the police are too lazy to follow much through, but not many of them are captured on camera, get as heavy as a broken eye socket, and are conducted directly in front of an off-duty policeman. To walk away with out even a mark on his record is bizarre in the extreme - and he should thank the CPS and his lawyers for that. So yeah, for me he is lucky. As are both Hales and the toe-rag with the bottle. The other guy doesn't seem to have done anything except get decked by Stokes.