Oh Stokesy......STOKESY!!!

Well I haven't kept current and law school was a long time ago but now I think about it ABH may be the only assault charge that carries a more severe penalty (given the slap on the wrist mentality of modern courts). Actually GBH would definitely see him doing time in the big house but that doesn't apply in this case.

Affray being a bit more ancient (probably the one thing you can't really change the definition of, unlike the various assault offences over the years) might have been a their best bet. Technically you can get off with a fine if you're smart, and by all accounts he's not, and cough to it straight away.

Definitions and sentencing guidelines change and its not actually my particular filed of expertise (which is very farking narrow).

no worries ... in my line of work, years ago, the main questions were always fairly simple i.e. 'is that wound consistent with being hit in the head by a brick' to which the answer unfortunately was obviously yes. As soon as there was an associated fracture it went automatically from actual bodily harm to grievous bodily harm. Photographs of bruising and finger marks were important, also.

It sounds to me as though the victim here is not pressing charges, for whatever reason, and the the local prosecution service has no appetite for the public theatre around a more serious charge. I think he will get off with a slap on the wrist. Hope the victim is OK.

horace wrote:

Growler wrote:I won't hold my breath though. CPS doesn't really mean Crown Prosecution Service.

Most of the time it means

Couldn't Prosecute Satan

usually for lack of evidence.

Absolute burnished gold.

I would have thought the injury and the vision of a sustained brutal attack constitutes evidence that should be tested in Court.

Mystic Growler was almost right - you can bet a thousand bucks to a 10-cent bit that if the CCTV hadn't seen the light of day, Stokes wouldn't see the inside of a courtroom.

As it is, they've set the bar as low as it will go haven't they ?

OK.  I hear where you're coming from and know (unfortunately) what you're talking about.  I haven't heard much news up here but although the victim isn't pressing charges that don't matter. This and England isn't America.   Not sure about Australian law but GBH requires specific intent, ie: when that qunt steps off the No.19 bus I'm gonna nail the bastard with a baseball bat.  And bodily harm (again I'm only going by the English standard) is anything from a scraped knee.

lardbucket wrote:no worries ... in my line of work, years ago, the main questions were always fairly simple i.e. 'is that wound consistent with being hit in the head by a brick' to which the answer unfortunately was obviously yes. As soon as there was an associated fracture it went automatically from actual bodily harm to grievous bodily harm. Photographs of bruising and finger marks were important, also.

It sounds to me as though the victim here is not pressing charges, for whatever reason, and the the local prosecution service has no appetite for the public theatre around a more serious charge.  I think he will get off with a slap on the wrist.  Hope the victim is OK.

Isn't the victim one of those being charged?

taipan wrote:

lardbucket wrote:no worries ... in my line of work, years ago, the main questions were always fairly simple i.e. 'is that wound consistent with being hit in the head by a brick' to which the answer unfortunately was obviously yes. As soon as there was an associated fracture it went automatically from actual bodily harm to grievous bodily harm. Photographs of bruising and finger marks were important, also.

It sounds to me as though the victim here is not pressing charges, for whatever reason, and the the local prosecution service has no appetite for the public theatre around a more serious charge.  I think he will get off with a slap on the wrist.  Hope the victim is OK.

Isn't the victim one of those being charged?

Yeah, can you have an affray with just one person?

I think you can, MrK.

Public Order Act 1986 provides this :-

"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."

So any drunken cockwomble being a general arse-piece which frightens bystanders can, in theory, be charged. Unlikely now though, but still possible. Give it about 10 years, and it may not even be considered a real crime any more ..... it won't be the first.

Well whatever happens with Stokes, it will remain a blot on the escutcheon..

Growler wrote:I think you can, MrK.

Public Order Act 1986 provides this :-

"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."

So any drunken cockwomble being a general arse-piece which frightens bystanders can, in theory, be charged. Unlikely now though, but still possible. Give it about 10 years, and it may not even be considered a real crime any more ..... it won't be the first.

Sometimes that's not a bad thing. Like "threatening to kill a foreign Prince". As opposed to gagging over the crap that's being spouted about that pampered ponce who's only redeeming feature is he's not as duckshit dumb as his big brother.

Affray seems a low level charge. Up to CPS to argue the case shd be heard in a higher court and for the Beak to agree. Suspect the Pig won't want that and plea for a bond and fine.

beamer wrote:The issue could be that it drags on for months so wasting another summer of his England career.

In that regard pleading guilty might be in his interest but he seems determined to contest it.

If he pleads guilty, wouldn't he be banned from Aus?

taipan wrote:

lardbucket wrote:no worries ... in my line of work, years ago, the main questions were always fairly simple i.e. 'is that wound consistent with being hit in the head by a brick' to which the answer unfortunately was obviously yes. As soon as there was an associated fracture it went automatically from actual bodily harm to grievous bodily harm. Photographs of bruising and finger marks were important, also.

It sounds to me as though the victim here is not pressing charges, for whatever reason, and the the local prosecution service has no appetite for the public theatre around a more serious charge.  I think he will get off with a slap on the wrist.  Hope the victim is OK.

Isn't the victim one of those being charged?

Possibly; I don't know. If the victim won't press assault charges, that could account for a victim being charged with affray, if the police are particularly frustrated.

There has been scuttlebutt about this case that has travelled right around the world ...

lardbucket wrote:

taipan wrote:

lardbucket wrote:no worries ... in my line of work, years ago, the main questions were always fairly simple i.e. 'is that wound consistent with being hit in the head by a brick' to which the answer unfortunately was obviously yes. As soon as there was an associated fracture it went automatically from actual bodily harm to grievous bodily harm. Photographs of bruising and finger marks were important, also.

It sounds to me as though the victim here is not pressing charges, for whatever reason, and the the local prosecution service has no appetite for the public theatre around a more serious charge.  I think he will get off with a slap on the wrist.  Hope the victim is OK.

Isn't the victim one of those being charged?

Possibly; I don't know. If the victim won't press assault charges, that could account for a victim being charged with affray, if the police are particularly frustrated.

There has been scuttlebutt about this case that has travelled right around the world ...

Maybe the guy's still in the closet. Maybe he doesn't want to become a support act to a high profile case. Regardless. This not pressing charges crap only goes so far. So affray may mean he doesn't have to testify. The CCTV footage should take care of that.

taipan wrote:

beamer wrote:The issue could be that it drags on for months so wasting another summer of his England career.

In that regard pleading guilty might be in his interest but he seems determined to contest it.

If he pleads guilty, wouldn't he be banned from Aus?

Permanently?

There’s probably only one more away Ashes tour in his top level career anyway. Not sure where 2023 World Cup is.

ECB clears Stokes to play in the JAMITTs

embee wrote:ECB clears Stokes to play in the JAMITTs

Well that was always going to happen. Interesting if he is recalled for the hearing of the matter during the series.

So he couldn't play Tests when he was waiting to see if he was going to be charged, but then when he IS charged the ECB allows him to play T20s.

Bizarre.

The timing is odd too. He won't set foot in Oz, only in his snoozie homeland. I wonder this is a legal issue/bail conditions issue. I suspect the ECB, CA and respective govts may have had a chat.

skully wrote:So he couldn't play Tests when he was waiting to see if he was going to be charged, but then when he IS charged the ECB allows him to play T20s.

Bizarre.

That's the ECB for you. Probably crapping themselves at the prospect of a restraint of trade action from Stokes.

Basil wrote:

skully wrote:So he couldn't play Tests when he was waiting to see if he was going to be charged, but then when he IS charged the ECB allows him to play T20s.

Bizarre.

That's the ECB for you. Probably crapping themselves at the prospect of a restraint of trade action from Stokes.

Really? I'd be amazed if that card was played.

skully wrote:So he couldn't play Tests when he was waiting to see if he was going to be charged, but then when he IS charged the ECB allows him to play T20s.

Bizarre.

In a nutshell, decidedly paradoxical.

The case has started.

Clear from evidence led so far that he was spoiling for trouble. Commences with homophobic remarks and actions to a gay couple.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-bristol-45082248

Initial evidence doesn't look great for Stokes, which flies in the face of his claim at the time that he was defending some gay friends.