Ben Stokes Arrested (Found not guilty)
Comments
-
All the details are already on the West Indies thread.0
-
Oh, sink or close then.0
-
just goes to show that as soon as a bit more money is involved in a sport it is proven to be as bad as the rest.
between things like this and Geoff Boycott with his casual racism, cricket shows its true colours...
2 -
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-45182868
Found not Guilty.1 -
I find that very surprising, based on the evidence that was coming out during the trial.7
-
Celebrity gets away with something shocker.
Rich people get better lawyers.5 -
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.18
-
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 anything0
-
Nail on head, you wonder why the CPS passed it for charges. Maybe that fame thing works both ways?Croydon said: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.
2 -
Sponsored links:
-
He knocked 2 blokes unconscious. Perhaps he was charged with the wrong offence ?
Perhaps the charge should have been GBH or ABH ?10 -
It makes you wonder with the CPS, all the money the trial has costSuper_Eddie_Youds said:
Nail on head, you wonder why the CPS passed it for charges. Maybe that fame thing works both ways?Croydon said: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.
1 -
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 cpsSuper_Eddie_Youds said:
Nail on head, you wonder why the CPS passed it for charges. Maybe that fame thing works both ways?Croydon said: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.
2 -
All sounds like an utter farce.Carter said:
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 cpsSuper_Eddie_Youds said:
Nail on head, you wonder why the CPS passed it for charges. Maybe that fame thing works both ways?Croydon said: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.
1 -
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).2 -
Cps are all fucking laughable0
-
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.3
-
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.1 -
CPS maybe correct to charge but wrong charge and that's how they got off1
-
Unless you sit through a case It's hard to build up a fair picture. Stokes wasn't found guilty.Goonerhater said:CPS maybe correct to charge but wrong charge and that's how they got off
The jury have to make a decision on what they hear and the prosecution have to build a convincing case.3 -
Sponsored links:
-
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.1
-
Last week they put on their running headlines on the news channel, Ben Strokes giving evidence.bristoladdick said: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.
1 -
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.15 -
On the plus side, at last something exciting as happened to a cricketer.12
-
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.Goonerhater said:CPS maybe correct to charge but wrong charge and that's how they got off
0 -
Which is highly unlikely to happen on the pitch.Greenie said:On the plus side, at last something exciting as happened to a cricketer.
1 -
It's over now.Greenie said:On the plus side, at last something exciting as happened to a cricketer.
1 -
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.0
-
One thing I do know. Ben Stokes is guilty of being a frigging idiot.2
-
Because they never existed?Glosfan said: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.
0
