Ben stokes | Page 2 | Vital Football

Ben stokes

The way I see it if a higher court clears you the lower authority should be forced to accept the verdict regardless. Court as opposed to the e c b
The two things 1. charge of affray and 2. disrepute are two quite separate matters. Stokes was found not guilty of the charge but that hasn't necessarily absolved him from being considered as bring the game into disrepute regardless of how you see it.
 
The two things 1. charge of affray and 2. disrepute are two quite separate matters. Stokes was found not guilty of the charge but that hasn't necessarily absolved him from being considered as bring the game into disrepute regardless of how you see it.
Indeed, while stokes was found not guilty of affray, some of the things he admitted to doing were pretty poor. just having 10 drinks after a match, arguing with bouncers etc are examples of bringing the ecb into disrepute.
 
Last edited:
For crying out loud, why are we even debating this, other than to say.... “well done Ben”

Surely we all respect UK law and a jury has found him not guility.

Added to that, “ Speaking to ITV after the trial, Kai Barry and William O'Connor - the couple Mr Stokes defended - said they were thankful for what he had done. Mr Barry said: "I thought he was just a normal lad sticking up for someone that was obviously weaker than he was.”

What more needs to be said? Personally I think those who continue to question Ben ought to hang their head in shame. There’s been a trial and it said not guilty!
 
I assume you meant ECB. Their charge would be bringing the game into disrepute, which is not the same as a criminal or civil charge brought before a court. The fact that he was involved in a scuffle and has appeared in court is hardly the behaviour of someone who is seen as a role model for the game.

True, but breaking team curfew and protocol, getting drunk and having a punch up outside a bar is clearly going the lead to a disciplinary sanction, but I would envisage that sanction wouldn’t be any more than the 6 tests (and other cricket) he has already missed due to suspension. Time to move on, I’d say.
 
However, being an apologist for someone who our eyes tells us used his sporting torso to beat up men clearly not as well built as him, having earlier imitated an insulting mincing pose in front of his gay "friends", makes me draw my own conclusions about the character of the man.

I’ve heard a number of times that Stokes “knocked out”’the two men. Is this factually true and established at the trial (I don’t actually know)? I suspect that this and comments like stokes used his sporting torso to beat up two men is sensationalist fall out of the reporting. Stokes might be an athletic and feisty guy but he’s a cricketer who aren’t known for being hard men - one of the guys was a soldier, I’d be amazed if he was knocked out cold by Stokes.
 
Affray means that general passers by would have to be in fear of violence, almost like in a riot. I.e. someone not involved in the fight, but present at the scene would be fearful for their own safety.
Given the fractured eye socket suffered by the guy Stokes hit, I wonder why he wasn’t charged with ABH?
 
"Self defence which was his claim would suggest someone was advancing on him, not the other way round. The film only shows him going forward."

Common law states......

A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large."

Stokes would claim that he thought the two lads were going to assault him or his gay mates, he mentions that one of them grabbed a bottle and that he anticipated serious violence would be used against them.

A stated case says.....

There is no rule in law to say that a person must wait to be struck first before they may defend themselves, (see R v Deana, 2 Cr App R 75).

He therefore used a pre emptive strike against them. The jury obviously thought the force he used was reasonable considering the force that was about to be used by them. (He has used that force in the prevention of crime)
 
Affray seems an odd charge for what happened. Hardly likely to cause "terror" to others not involved.

The one quote from Stokes' evidence that I particularly wondered at was his claim not to have been drunk yet he couldn't remember knocking out 2 people. Sounds a bit dangerous to me.
 
I'm with you Bluenose. How many of us would ever throw a series of really aggressive punches like those seen on the video? I never would. Irrespective of his sporting abilities, he comes across as a thug, as Joey Barton was.
 
Evidence was that the guy threatened to bottle him and had a bottle in hand at the time. The gay couple, who were not called to give evidence, have also now spoken publically to thank him for standing up for them. After the verdict and that what more do people want?
 
He has been found not guilty of the charge and that's the end of it. As a separate issue, the ECB has asked an independent panel to judge whether Stokes and Hales have brought the game into disrepute. Apparently, both broke rules set out in the contracts signed with the ECB.
 
Affray seems an odd charge for what happened. Hardly likely to cause "terror" to others not involved.

The one quote from Stokes' evidence that I particularly wondered at was his claim not to have been drunk yet he couldn't remember knocking out 2 people. Sounds a bit dangerous to me.

That sounds like a well bit of scripted testimony. You don't say you didn't knock someone out, because that could be a technical term, you could easily say you don't remember knocking someone out, as punching someone and them falling over does not necessarily mean you knocked them out.

Interesting how the pre-emptive self defense issue has come in here. Humans are inherently fight or flight after all, I honestly don't know if I was in the situation of someone coming at me with a bottle whether I'd go nuts and aggressive, or turn tail and leg it. I've fortunately not been in that situation, but can definitely understand the response of going full beast mode to take someone out before they take you out.

Read today that the gay couple were considered unreliable by both the CPS and the defense, which is why they weren't called.
 
I think that if this affair had taken place in Scotland the verdict could well have been "not proven".