The Cricket Thread

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Not sure what to think. That video looked pretty compelling and even with a good lawyer and some fancy wording, he looked like he went too far at something.
 
A reasonable person nearby has to fear for their safety for it to be affray. Have to say that if men were fighting in the open I wouldn't fear for my safety....in an enclosed space I might. My guess is that is the bit that made the jury say not guilty.
 
Stokes certainly doesn't come out of this whiter than white. I feel he should be suspended by the ECB. At best, he got himself involved in an unsavoury incident. At worst he committed a serious crime and was very lucky not to be convicted.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Velcro Roy and Whiteley Saint
tomw24 said:
Stokes certainly doesn't come out of this whiter than white. I feel he should be suspended by the ECB. At best, he got himself involved in an unsavoury incident. At worst he committed a serious crime and was very lucky not to be convicted.
Click to expand...
And it’s not as though he doesn’t have previous form with this sort of thing. He was sent home from an England Lions Tour in 2013 for late night drinking, and has a few antisocial charges against his record. He essentially needs to be told to grow up, and a suspension could be what he needs, although the outcome wouldn’t be guaranteed.
 
If he is suspended they may well take into account his “time served” over the winter and put him straight back in the team.

Or possibly not. If they beat India this week and go 3-0 up then they may tack another 2-3 months on.
 
fatletiss said:
Not sure what to think. That video looked pretty compelling and even with a good lawyer and some fancy wording, he looked like he went too far at something.
Click to expand...


You see , like his lawyer said outside court , only the Jury have seen ALL the cctv footage . I thought he was guilty in the very early stages , but as it moved on and the defence put their case across I Honestly thought he was innocent .

Not saying he didn't hit someone , but that he had good cause to do so .
 
Number 1 Jasper said:
You see , like his lawyer said outside court , only the Jury have seen ALL the cctv footage . I thought he was guilty in the very early stages , but as it moved on and the defence put their case across I Honestly thought he was innocent .

Not saying he didn't hit someone , but that he had good cause to do so .
Click to expand...
If he had good cause, why was the other guy also not guilty? Seems like the charge was wrong. GBH/ABH for the broken eye socket might have got a result.
 
Affray seems to be the charge when people get in a fight that would alarm an average reasonable person and make them fear for their safety. What Stokes did could have warranted a charge of GBH (though not of the worst kind as you have to prove intent to do major harm to get that conviction), but from admittedly limited research it seems GBH is less commonly used if several people are involved i.e. a fight. I think it came down to accepting some provocation was proved and no one else (if present) would have been worried. The other chap would have been released for the same reason...was he provoked into action by Stokes' actions....yes, he was carrying a bottle but probably initially just intended to drink from it....he wasn't carrying it as a weapon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back