Not Guilty

[Canary42]

So, the twelve who heard the whole evidence, not just the gutter media's smears, found him not guilty. Now he can resume his unjustly interrupted career.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-45182868

[andy-hughes]

spath - // Stand up to homophobia and assault and stick up for other people and the jury will see right. //

If you really think that an appropriate way to stand up to homophobia and assault is to punch people unconscious, then we have a different view in terms of making our thoughts known in public.


There are those who think Mr Stokes was scapegoated because he is a famous sportsman, and that he as been found innocent of the offences.

We should remember that he was found Not Guilty, which is not actually the same as innocent, because the law revolves around provable evidence and reasonable doubt.

It is clear that Mr Stokes and friend acted like louts, and that does not cover him in any glory, Not Guilty notwithstanding.

Thanks to the moral cowardice of the organisation that employs Mr Stokes, they have rushed him back into the England squad, which means that a player who helped to win the last Test will be dropped to accommodate him.


The notion that his career was 'unjustly interrupted' is utter nonsense - he interrupted it when he drank to excess, and then acted like a football hooligan and was rightly arrested for it.

[andy-hughes]

spath - // Andy, it was all on CCTV.. What Mr Stokes did was save a life. It was like an act of self defence, but on behalf of someone else. //

I think you are letting your sense of drama get in the way of simple facts here.

There is no indication that anyone's life was directly threatened at all, much less that Mr Stokes 'saved it'!

And you cannot have an act of self-defence on behalf of someone else, the first word of the time is something of a giveaway about what it actually means.


If you want to save someone, you can step between them and their aggressor, or you can call 999, or you can shout for help, or you can walk the victim away quickly.

Or you can behave like a nasty yob and punch someone unconscious instead.

Are you familiar with the term 'reasonable force'?

[andy-hughes]

spath - // "If you really think that an appropriate way to stand up to homophobia and assault is to punch people unconscious, then we have a different view in terms of making our thoughts known in public. "

I think anyone who decides to bottle someone in the face because they are with their boyfriend should, in my opinion, go to hell. //

I entirely agree - but that is not what we are discussing is it?

Homophobia is inexcusable, but so is vicious assault - defending one to does not give licence for the other.

[andy-hughes]

spath - // If i saw someone about to get bottled in the face, i think punching them to stop the incident is reasonable. Yes, the man could die, but the chances of the person getting bottled dieing are much higher. The people were also shouting homophobic abuse at the couple..

Have you seen the evidence? //

Once again, if you think punching someone unconscious is an appropriate reaction to what may or not be a threat against someone else is appropriate, then we have to agree to differ.

The jury have found Mr Stokes Not Guilty Of Affray - which is the offence with which he was charged.

But no-one could possibly deny that he did punch someone unconscious, because yes, I have seen the evidence.

[New Judge]

"Have you seen the evidence?"

None on here has seen and heard all the evidence, spathi. All we'e got are snippets and brief summaries of what was said to have happened.

He's been found not guilty of Affray and that's that. As Andy pointed out (and as I did in an earlier post) because a NG verdict was returned that does not mean that nothing happened and it does not mean that no offences were committed. Most of all, it does not mean the behaviour of all involved was exemplary.

The jury considered an allegation of Affray. It is my view (from the very limited information I have and from what I've read since the trial) that the wrong charge was brought. But I'm blessed with hindsight and very limited information.

[Peter Pedant]

// Andy, it was all on CCTV.. What Mr Stokes did was save a life. It was like an act of self defence, but on behalf of someone else.//

the law distinguishes self defence ( a defence which will get up and run on the facts ) and self defence on behalf of someone else
( eek ! a bit of AB speak there - does anyone beside Jim spot the lack of self reference in that?)

I notice the lack of the AB razor ( like Occams rfazor but sort of loopsided) - the question "did he do it? "
frequently asked in the Law thread and never asked in this case
I wonder why

instead - we have had a lot on how affray is difficult to prove
OK use another charge
I thought GBH
but then in the trial - it came up that the uncharged fighter might have done it all or in part
and then after the trial ( Times today )
the judge ( recorder blair) asking why the prosecution had been OKayed from London and not Bristol

and the judge ( a/c to the Times) when he was asked by the Crown to vary the charges on the day of the Trial ( include assault)
said - no you should have applied for that in Feb when you sent a gopher who just sat there

so the back story is as good as the case
but no video .....

[anotheoldgit]

What a farce, a person was knocked unconscious, one had an eye almost removed, it was all down on CCTV, yet everyone was found innocent. Someone must be guilty so those who weren't charged must now be the guilty ones.

[New Judge]

"It was not affray because, in my opinion it was not " to the terror of ordinary people." "

Affray dos not have to involve "the terror of ordinary people". For information, this is Section 3 of the Public Order Act:

(1) A person is guilty of affray if he uses or threatens unlawful violence towards another and his conduct is such as would cause a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene to fear for his personal safety.

(2) Where 2 or more persons use or threaten the unlawful violence, it is the conduct of them taken together that must be considered for the purposes of subsection (1).

(3) For the purposes of this section a threat cannot be made by the use of words alone.

(4) No person of reasonable firmness need actually be, or be likely to be, present at the scene.

(5) Affray may be committed in private as well as in public places.

[andy-hughes]

New Judge - // "It was not affray because, in my opinion it was not " to the terror of ordinary people." " //

The surrounding circumstances do bear out your conclusion - there were virtually no people in the vicinity of the incident, and that those that were near were clearly indifferent to what was going on.

I think with hindsight - which once again we all have - the CPS brought the wrong charge, of which Mr Stokes was correctly not convicted.

[Peter Pedant]

// because a NG verdict was returned that does not mean that nothing happened//

oh come on come on - this is verging on "we know he did it but he got off even tho the Crown worked night and day...."
The Crown staff sat there picking their noses as far as I can see

in terms of he/she did it really - - we have
Amy Bartlett who got her husband to drink a pint of chloroform. (acquitted). Sir James Paget - "in the interests fo science she should tell us how she did it"

Devlin saying that Dr Bodkin Adams ( acquitted ) had really killed all those patients ( 1955)

Stephen Waldorf ( Laughing Policeman case ) was thought by most in the Police to be a wrong 'un so it was OK to shoot him five times in mistake for someone else.

[andy-hughes]

AOG - // … yet everyone was found innocent. //

As I have pointed out previously, being found Not Guilty is not the same as being innocent.

[Peter Pedant]

The CPS is not having a good year - - - I agree

[New Judge]

"Well, to be fair, you can't be that scared when your cold hard KO'd on the floor."

Read the statute which I went to great trouble (!) to find for you, spathi. The "person of reasonable firmness" does not have to be conscious. In fact he does not even have to be present - or even likely to be present - at the scene at all.