England Summer Test Series

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 15344
  • Start date Start date
The case had been wrecked before it started, the two men who Stokes was either insulting or defending could not give evidence as they had decided to sell their stories to the Sun. As such, all of the evidence given by both sides was pretty much 6 of one, half a dozen of the other. Bearing that in mind, there is no way that you can convict beyond reasonable doubt and the not guilty verdict was almost inevitable. Surprised the CPS actually took it to trial on that basis and suspect a lesser name would have had the charges dropped long before.
 
Amazed he got off given the CCTV footage. Hopefully the ECB will find him guilty of bringing the game into disrepute and suspend him for a while to at least teach him some sort of lesson. There's also talk now that him missing The Ashes could be his 5-match suspension punishment back-dated, which would be a joke.
 
SaintHacker said:
Whats sad is that you're willing to convict someone on the basis of a grainy cctc video and a media witchhunt with absolutely no knowledge of what went on before the incident.
Click to expand...

I don't need to know the full details of what went on before to know that he went so far beyond self defence that he was, in my opinion, clearly guilty of affray at a bare minimum.

Sadly, it's a fact that it's harder to prosecute than it is to defend.
 
Dan2501 said:
Amazed he got off given the CCTV footage. Hopefully the ECB will find him guilty of bringing the game into disrepute and suspend him for a while to at least teach him some sort of lesson. There's also talk now that him missing The Ashes could be his 5-match suspension punishment back-dated, which would be a joke.
Click to expand...

He has already missed two tours because of it but has now been found not guilty by the court of law , that should be the end of it now - but appears people still want a bit of flesh
 
Kellfire said:
I don't need to know the full details of what went on before to know that he went so far beyond self defence that he was, in my opinion, clearly guilty of affray at a bare minimum.

Sadly, it's a fact that it's harder to prosecute than it is to defend.
Click to expand...

What if the other guy had a blade in his back pocket. Did he still go too far then? You don't have the full facts, therefore your opinion is irrelevant.
 
SaintHacker said:
What if the other guy had a blade in his back pocket. Did he still go too far then? You don't have the full facts, therefore your opinion is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

This is the problem with the case as a whole. You had 2 parties both giving polar opposite views of the evening events and, of course, 2 barristers looking to make one side sound guilty and the other innocent. There were, by the sounds of it, 2 people who could have filled in the gaps who could not give evidence. As such, you have 2 opposite views, very little in the way of corroboration for either side and a requirement to prove guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. Was only ever going to end one way and should never have reached trial.
Bearing in mind that you get dozens of similar incidents every weekend on high streets up and down the country every weekend which are addressed with cautions and similar, you do have to ask whether the CPS prosecuted this based purely on the level of press coverage.
 
I played schools/county 2nds (the latter very briefly!) cricket in the early 80s. But I came through the system with some guys who made it. I was out a few times when some "local lad" faniced having a "go" at an England player. Sometimes they got what they asked for. No camera phones/CCTV in those days!

As for this case, no idea what went on, I wasnt there. Jury said Not Guilty, therefore any cricket enquiry surely has to accept that verdict.
 
Got to say I’m hugely shocked he got off with it, it’s ok swinging a drunken haymaker but this looked to be a prolonged assault. He goes after the lads numerous times, trying to knock their heads off their shoulders. Knife in his back pocket lol maybe the other fella got off as he thought Stokes had a bazooka in his pants 😂
 
The bloke was backing away with his hands up and Stokes absolutely leathered him, knocking him out cold onto concrete. He could have killed him. Could possibly see the POV that it was self defence initially, when Ali had the bottle in his hand, but at the point he knocked out Hale the fight was over and Hale was clearly not looking to fight. I struggle to side with Stokes on this one.
 
Dan2501 said:
The bloke was backing away with his hands up and Stokes absolutely leathered him, knocking him out cold onto concrete. He could have killed him. Could possibly see the POV that it was self defence initially, when Ali had the bottle in his hand, but at the point he knocked out Hale the fight was over and Hale was clearly not looking to fight. I struggle to side with Stokes on this one.
Click to expand...

100%
The word on the street up here is Stokes is a really bad egg off the field, specially when he’s had a few shandies. He’s a very lucky lad.
 
Seems the CPS tried to change the charges to a lesser ones of assault occasioning ABH on day one of the trial. They knew they were on to a loser before it even started.
 
Kellfire said:
I don't need to know the full details of what went on before to know that he went so far beyond self defence that he was, in my opinion, clearly guilty of affray at a bare minimum.

Sadly, it's a fact that it's harder to prosecute than it is to defend.
Click to expand...

Wow. You want defendants to have to prove innocence more than the prosecution provide evidence of guilt? I'm really not sure what to make of that.

You can have an opinion on the outcome but in reality you know nothing other than through the eyes of the press.

I'm sat with 200+ lawyers right now and the overwhelming consensus is the complete opposite to yours. The CPS are crazy for even bringing it to court.

As for the ECB enquiry, I think they'll ban him for the rest of summer. Made much easier for them with England 2-0 up.
 
TheDiablo said:
You want defendants to have to prove innocence more than the prosecution provide evidence of guilt?
Click to expand...

I didn't say that so your faux-shock is moot.

What I mean is that it's more difficult to gain a successful prosecution than it is to gain a successful defence, ie. most crimes are NOT met with a guilty verdict.
 
Kellfire said:
I didn't say that so your faux-shock is moot.

What I mean is that it's more difficult to gain a successful prosecution than it is to gain a successful defence, ie. most crimes are NOT met with a guilty verdict.
Click to expand...

The only way to change that is to burden the defence with proving innocence. So again, not really sure what to make of that comment.
 
Stokes for Curran, Stokes for Buttler, or, given the lack of action he got, Stokes for Rashid ?????

Personally, Stokes for Curran for me. I always like to have a spinner in the team just in case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Piece
2015 Drivers - Mini Test
2
Replies
22
Views
10K
SugarPenguin
SugarPenguin
Top