All involved found not guilty. Which, seeing as they were all charged with supposed affray against each other, makes the whole thing seem a bit of a waste of time.
I presume he's going to have three or four pints of beer, a couple of vodka lemonades and "potentially some Jagerbombs" to unwind - y'know, just to take the edge off, not get drunk or anything
All involved found not guilty. Which, seeing as they were all charged with supposed affray against each other, makes the whole thing seem a bit of a waste of time.
Nail on head, you wonder why the CPS passed it for charges. Maybe that fame thing works both ways?
All involved found not guilty. Which, seeing as they were all charged with supposed affray against each other, makes the whole thing seem a bit of a waste of time.
Nail on head, you wonder why the CPS passed it for charges. Maybe that fame thing works both ways?
It makes you wonder with the CPS, all the money the trial has cost
All involved found not guilty. Which, seeing as they were all charged with supposed affray against each other, makes the whole thing seem a bit of a waste of time.
Nail on head, you wonder why the CPS passed it for charges. Maybe that fame thing works both ways?
You know what, I think that is the case sometimes. If he wasn't Ben Stokes international test cricketer I'm not convinced this would have made it past the phone call to the cps
All involved found not guilty. Which, seeing as they were all charged with supposed affray against each other, makes the whole thing seem a bit of a waste of time.
Nail on head, you wonder why the CPS passed it for charges. Maybe that fame thing works both ways?
You know what, I think that is the case sometimes. If he wasn't Ben Stokes international test cricketer I'm not convinced this would have made it past the phone call to the cps
Affray - an instance of group fighting in a public place that destroys the peace.
There was undoubtedly group fighting in a public place, because we all saw it. So, they must have been not guilty of the fight "destroying the peace".
Personally, I think he was guilty of ABH, but that wasn't the charge. (But what do I know) ?
Grievous Bodily Harm (GBH) - either section 18 which carries life imprisonment (with intent to do serious harm) or section 20 (which has a maximum of 5 years). Assault occasioning actual bodily harm (ABH - again a maximum of 5 years). Common Assault or Assault By Beating (Maximum 6 months).
Kick in the teeth for the BBC too, who with their headlines have been gagging for another celebrity scalp. Headlines on home page such as 'Stokes lied in testimony', which when you read the article was then refuted and knocked back by the defence lawyers. Laughable prosecution by the CPS and a waste of money.
People here criticising the CPS wrongly in my opinion. Based on the evidence in the public domain they were entirely correct in seeking a conviction.
I would be amazed if any jury in this country would have found a sporting hero guilty of anything, and no surprise he opted for trial by jury when I believe this could have been dealt with at Magistrate level.
Does anyone know why the two gay men involved were not asked to testify? From following the trial closely it seems their evidence would have been vital. All very strange.
Kick in the teeth for the BBC too, who with their headlines have been gagging for another celebrity scalp. Headlines on home page such as 'Stokes lied in testimony', which when you read the article was then refuted and knocked back by the defence lawyers. Laughable prosecution by the CPS and a waste of money.
Last week they put on their running headlines on the news channel, Ben Strokes giving evidence.
The right people arrested. Police investigated, gathered evidence and presented it to the CPS who determined there was a better than 50% chance of conviction. Court case held and reported on - but not televised. Independent jury weighed up the evidence and determined - exclusively on the weight of evidence presented - that all three defendants were not guilty. Protagonists shook hands at the conclusion.
That's exactly how it should be. Someone isn't guilty just because he's arrested. He's not guilty just because he's been charged. He's not guilty just because his case goes to court. He's guilty when the process is followed, fairly, and the jury delivers a guilty verdict.
I am surprised at the amount of criticism being levelled at this process. Because it actually worked.
CPS maybe correct to charge but wrong charge and that's how they got off
I assume the CPS opted for affray as neither side was prepared to prosecute the other. Gay couple didn't testify, don't think Alex Hales did, so a bit of a non-starter.
Both accused were trying to argue they were protecting the gay couple from the other accused. They were not friends with either accused, unlike Alex Hales. And yet they didn't give evidence as to who was telling the truth? I agree, bit of a non starter.
Does anyone know why the two gay men involved were not asked to testify? From following the trial closely it seems their evidence would have been vital. All very strange.
Comments
between things like this and Geoff Boycott with his casual racism, cricket shows its true colours...
Found not Guilty.
Rich people get better lawyers.
Perhaps the charge should have been GBH or ABH ?
There was undoubtedly group fighting in a public place, because we all saw it.
So, they must have been not guilty of the fight "destroying the peace".
Personally, I think he was guilty of ABH, but that wasn't the charge. (But what do I know) ?
Grievous Bodily Harm (GBH) - either section 18 which carries life imprisonment (with intent to do serious harm) or section 20 (which has a maximum of 5 years). Assault occasioning actual bodily harm (ABH - again a maximum of 5 years). Common Assault or Assault By Beating (Maximum 6 months).
I would be amazed if any jury in this country would have found a sporting hero guilty of anything, and no surprise he opted for trial by jury when I believe this could have been dealt with at Magistrate level.
The jury have to make a decision on what they hear and the prosecution have to build a convincing case.
That's exactly how it should be. Someone isn't guilty just because he's arrested. He's not guilty just because he's been charged. He's not guilty just because his case goes to court. He's guilty when the process is followed, fairly, and the jury delivers a guilty verdict.
I am surprised at the amount of criticism being levelled at this process. Because it actually worked.