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

Not guilty!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Thebumble
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.

Absolutely amazed by that.

Will be interesting to hear as more details come out how.

Either the jury has taken the self-defence argument at face value, or the CPS fucked it up badly...

Inclined to suspect the latter. The liar bouncer undermined the whole case perhaps?
 
Comeback_Kenwyne said:
Absolutely amazed by that.

Will be interesting to hear as more details come out how.

Either the jury has taken the self-defence argument at face value, or the CPS fucked it up badly...

Inclined to suspect the latter. The liar bouncer undermined the whole case perhaps?
Click to expand...

Sky Sports News have just explained the process. The jury are guided through 3 questions to come to a conclusion. The answers to the question are either yes or no. Should the jury answer no to any of the 3 questions then the verdict must be returned as not guilty. The 3 questions were:

- was violence used on the night in question?
- was the violence used disproportionate to the situation?
- would a third party (either real or hypothetical) have feared for their safety due to the actions of the defendant?

I presume the jury have decided that there was no danger of a third party becoming endangered. It's outside a night club. There would have been plenty "third parties" around. It doesn't look like anyone else feared that Stokes would turn on them. He took issue with Ali. He wasn't likely to take issue with anyone else. Answer no to the final question and the verdict must be returned as not guilty.
 
Doberman said:
Sky Sports News have just explained the process. The jury are guided through 3 questions to come to a conclusion. The answers to the question are either yes or no. Should the jury answer no to any of the 3 questions then the verdict must be returned as not guilty. The 3 questions were:

- was violence used on the night in question?
- was the violence used disproportionate to the situation?
- would a third party (either real or hypothetical) have feared for their safety due to the actions of the defendant?

I presume the jury have decided that there was no danger of a third party becoming endangered. It's outside a night club. There would have been plenty "third parties" around. It doesn't look like anyone else feared that Stokes would turn on them. He took issue with Ali. He wasn't likely to take issue with anyone else. Answer no to the final question and the verdict must be returned as not guilty.
Click to expand...
Presumably the BBC don't have enough time to fully explain.
 
I've only recently become aware of what affray is. Its whether a bystander would feel threatened by a situation and not at all whether he brayed someone without reasonable cause.

So they've charged him with that, and not with assaulting the 2 people he clearly punched.
Even though the prosecution asked the judge to lessen the charge to this.

Why would a normal bystander feel frightened by one bloke punching another bloke, its not like he was shouting and everyone nearby and threatening them.

Seems like a total balls up to me. The lads who were assaulted have been shafted.
 
PTR said:
I've only recently become aware of what affray is. Its whether a bystander would feel threatened by a situation and not at all whether he brayed someone without reasonable cause.

So they've charged him with that, and not with assaulting the 2 people he clearly punched.
Even though the prosecution asked the judge to lessen the charge to this.

Why would a normal bystander feel frightened by one bloke punching another bloke, its not like he was shouting and everyone nearby and threatening them.

Seems like a total balls up to me. The lads who were assaulted have been shafted.
Click to expand...

the lad he floored was also charged and there was a "warm embrace" between Stokes and Ali upon hearing the verdict. I don't think Ali feels shafted. In fact he probably feels that everything got way out of hand very quickly and 11 months after an argument went wrong they'll be glad to move on.
 
Doberman said:
Sky Sports News have just explained the process. The jury are guided through 3 questions to come to a conclusion. The answers to the question are either yes or no. Should the jury answer no to any of the 3 questions then the verdict must be returned as not guilty. The 3 questions were:

- was violence used on the night in question?
- was the violence used disproportionate to the situation?
- would a third party (either real or hypothetical) have feared for their safety due to the actions of the defendant?

I presume the jury have decided that there was no danger of a third party becoming endangered. It's outside a night club. There would have been plenty "third parties" around. It doesn't look like anyone else feared that Stokes would turn on them. He took issue with Ali. He wasn't likely to take issue with anyone else. Answer no to the final question and the verdict must be returned as not guilty.
Click to expand...

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.

PTR said:
I've only recently become aware of what affray is. Its whether a bystander would feel threatened by a situation and not at all whether he brayed someone without reasonable cause.

So they've charged him with that, and not with assaulting the 2 people he clearly punched.
Even though the prosecution asked the judge to lessen the charge to this.

Why would a normal bystander feel frightened by one bloke punching another bloke, its not like he was shouting and everyone nearby and threatening them.

Seems like a total balls up to me. The lads who were assaulted have been shafted.
Click to expand...

Is this true? Fools. You can't do that in court, when its clear the wind is blowing in a different direction. They didn't build that case - they only have themselves to blame.

Doberman said:
the lad he floored was also charged and there was a "warm embrace" between Stokes and Ali upon hearing the verdict. I don't think Ali feels shafted. In fact he probably feels that everything got way out of hand very quickly and 11 months after an argument went wrong they'll be glad to move on.
Click to expand...

Stokes is a very lucky boy he didn't press charges for ABH. Very lucky.

If the CPS and/or police hadn't charged them both with affray, they may have been able to build a better case against Stokes.
 
Last edited:
Comeback_Kenwyne said:
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.



Is this true? Fools. You can't do that in court, when its clear the wind is blowing in a different direction. They didn't build that case - they only have themselves to blame.



Stokes is a very lucky boy he didn't press charges for ABH. Very lucky.

If the CPS and/or police hadn't charged them both with affray, they may have been able to build a better case against Stokes.
Click to expand...
I read a few days before the start the CPS asked to add ABH. That's add not instead of.
 
Doberman said:
Sky Sports News have just explained the process. The jury are guided through 3 questions to come to a conclusion. The answers to the question are either yes or no. Should the jury answer no to any of the 3 questions then the verdict must be returned as not guilty. The 3 questions were:

- was violence used on the night in question?
- was the violence used disproportionate to the situation?
- would a third party (either real or hypothetical) have feared for their safety due to the actions of the defendant?

I presume the jury have decided that there was no danger of a third party becoming endangered. It's outside a night club. There would have been plenty "third parties" around. It doesn't look like anyone else feared that Stokes would turn on them. He took issue with Ali. He wasn't likely to take issue with anyone else. Answer no to the final question and the verdict must be returned as not guilty.
Click to expand...

Logon or register to see this image


Three pissed twats knocking crap out of eachother with no risk to the public. While reprehensible there was no-one hurt other than the morons themselves. Complete waste of taxpayers money

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

The BBC described it as a lesser charge.

ABH would have been impossible to prove given the other two were armed and Stokes wasn't, and thy hadnt brought a complaint.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
martin_s_buckley said:
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.
Click to expand...
There’s a video of the two gay blokes thanking Stokes for defending them.

You must be logged on to see external links
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top