Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board Forum Index
 The RulesThe Rules FAQFAQ
   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   CalendarCalendar   SearchSearch 
Log inLog in RegisterRegister
 
Ben Stokes

Users browsing this topic:0 Registered, 0 Hidden and 0 Guests
Registered Users: None

Post new topic   Reply to topic    Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board Forum Index -> Nick's Sports Bar
 
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  

Ben Stokes: What do you reckon?
Guilty as sin: ban him for 3 years
33%
 33%  [ 2 ]
Been a bit of a naughty boy: should be dropped and not tour
16%
 16%  [ 1 ]
Been a bit of a naughty boy: should cop a fine and remain Vice-captain
0%
 0%  [ 0 ]
The lad was only sticking up for his mates; no case to answer
50%
 50%  [ 3 ]
Total Votes : 6

Author Message
K 



Joined: 09 Sep 2011


PostPosted: Wed Aug 29, 2018 9:56 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

Adding to the suspicions discussed above that the case may have been bungled is this info:

"At the start of the trial the prosecution tried to amend the indictment and charge Stokes with two counts of assault occasioning actual bodily harm but this was rejected by the judge.

And half way through the trial Stokes’s legal team attempted to have the case against him dropped but this was also refused by the judge."



https://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/cricket/england-cricket-star-ben-stokes-acquitted-of-affray/news-story/bce5a69c1cd6cd2df9254025bd0c2824


I'd like to know whether "assault occasioning actual bodily harm" is actually a more serious charge than "affray". It would presumably at the very least have avoided the (Ali) defence that a lady watching from an upstairs window did not indicate she feared for her own personal safety.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
K 



Joined: 09 Sep 2011


PostPosted: Thu Aug 30, 2018 7:36 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

So let's see what assault occasioning actual bodily harm is...


Assault occasioning Actual Bodily Harm (ABH) – s47 OAPA 1861

"The offence is committed when a person intentionally or recklessly assaults another, thereby causing Actual Bodily Harm (ABH). Bodily harm has its ordinary meaning and includes any hurt calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim: such hurt need not be permanent, but must be more than transient and trifling: (R v Donovan 25 Cr. App. Rep. 1). It is an either way offence, which carries a maximum penalty on indictment of five years’ imprisonment and/or a fine."

Compare this with

Common Assault – s39 Criminal Justice Act 1988

"An offence of Common Assault is committed when a person either assaults another person or commits a battery.

An assault is committed when a person intentionally or recklessly causes another to apprehend the immediate infliction of unlawful force. A battery is committed when a person intentionally or recklessly applies unlawful force to another. Where there is a battery, the defendant should be charged with ‘assault by beating’. (DPP v Little (1992) 1 All ER 299).

Common assault is a summary offence, which carries a maximum penalty of six months’ imprisonment and/or a fine."


Note that

"Common assault should never be charged where the seriousness of the offence merits a charge of Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm (ABH).

As detailed below, a charge of ABH may be appropriate on the basis of aggravating factors relating to seriousness, even where the injuries caused are towards the lower end of the scale."


https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/offences-against-person-incorporating-charging-standard


[Affray was reported to carry a maximum penalty of 3 years, so on that basis ABH must be considered a more serious charge.]
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
K 



Joined: 09 Sep 2011


PostPosted: Sat Sep 01, 2018 9:54 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

Some questions then:
Is it common for the prosecution to change the charges, and does that often occur as late as the start of the trial?
What was the reason the judge rejected their attempt to amend the charges?
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
K 



Joined: 09 Sep 2011


PostPosted: Sun Sep 02, 2018 5:37 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

More on the failed prosecution attempt to change the charges:


'The decision to initially prosecute Stokes with one charge of affray was made by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), following the involvement of Treasury Counsel based in London.

Treasury Counsel are appointed by the Attorney General to advise on and conduct important and complex cases on behalf of the CPS.
...

Judge Peter Blair QC, the Recorder of Bristol, pointed out that Treasury Counsel had been instructed to advise on the case ...

"She didn't attend the plea and trial preparation hearing, she sent someone else from her chambers," he told the court.

The judge pointed out that the charge at the plea and trial preparation hearing had been affray, with assault occasioning actual bodily harm not mentioned.

A lengthy case summary, detailing the case against all three defendants, was drafted by Treasury Counsel in advance of that hearing, the court was told.

He asked Nicholas Corsellis, prosecuting, whether it was an insult to the local bar that an affray case had been dealt with by Treasury Counsel and those in London.

Mr Corsellis replied: "The presentation of this case is not in any way to be taken as any sort of criticism of the local bar."
...

... Judge Blair ruled that the two charges could not be added to the indictment.

He said it was "absolutely clear" that Treasury Counsel had not considered it was appropriate for Stokes to be charged with actual bodily harm.

"This is a very late application," the judge said.

"In my view, it is not necessary for the indictment to be amended and I reject the application." '



https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/cricket/ben-stokes-trial-judge-snubbed-13082338


[Comment: I guess that answers some of the questions. If it was a bad choice of charges, it seems Treasury Counsel are at fault, but the prosecutors should have tried to amend them earlier. It sounds a bit odd to me for the judge to ask the prosecutor the question about whether it was "an insult to the local bar". All rather strange...]
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
K 



Joined: 09 Sep 2011


PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2018 10:56 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

The vital questions lingering over Ben Stokes's botched 'affray' trial as the cleared cricketer returns to the field for England

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6072819/Vital-questions-linger-Ben-Stokes-trial-amid-dispute-police-CPS.html

"Why was Stokes charged with affray and not assault?
...

Judge Peter Blair QC said introducing the counts of assault occasioning actual bodily harm ... would be unfair on Stokes and his legal team so close to the trial.

He said it was ‘hard to see how the defence could have objected’ if the new charges had been added at a pre-trial hearing in February, but Stokes’s legal team had prepared for a trial on an affray charge and should not be ambushed with a last-minute change.
...

Police sources have said that they wanted Stokes to be charged with ABH, rather than affray, ‘right from the start’.

The decision to bring the affray charge was taken by Crown Prosecution Service lawyers.
A CPS spokesperson said: ‘The CPS keeps cases under continual review. We selected the charge of affray at the outset in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors.

‘Upon further review, we considered that additional assault charges would also be appropriate. The judge decided not to permit us to add these further charges.

‘The original charge of affray adequately reflected the criminality of the case and we proceeded on that.’ Asked whether the CPS would be conducting a review of how the case was handled, the spokesperson said it would not be doing so."



[Comment: I can see why it might be considered unfair to the defence team to "ambush" them with a change of charge.]
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Pies4shaw 



Joined: 08 Oct 2007


PostPosted: Tue Sep 04, 2018 8:16 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

In the 5th test against India: 23, 30, 7-1-1-23 and 12-2-2-34.

A solid contribution, holding the middle order together - he made his 53 for the match over 189 balls, in difficult conditions.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
K 



Joined: 09 Sep 2011


PostPosted: Sat Sep 08, 2018 11:58 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

"Judge Peter Blair QC, the Recorder of Bristol, provided a “route to verdict” document to the jury, detailing the questions they must answer.

– Question 1

Did Benjamin Andrew Stokes (BAM)/Ryan Aslam Ali (RAA) use or threaten violence towards another person?

Note: You must consider each defendant one-by-one, examining the evidence for and against each of them separately.

If your answer is “Yes, I’m sure he did”, go to Question 2(a).
If your answer is “No, or he may not have done”, NOT GUILTY.

– Question 2(a)

Did he genuinely believe that it was necessary to use or threaten that violence so as to defend himself and/or another?

Note: It is not unlawful to use reasonable force to defend yourself and/or another person. The first step is to consider whether the defendant genuinely may have believed he needed to use or threaten violence so as to defend himself or another.

If he genuinely did believe that, or he may have done, then go to Question 2(b).
If, on the other hand, you are sure that he did not genuinely believe he needed to use or threaten violence at all, then the prosecution will have proved that he acted unlawfully and you must go on to Question 3.

– Question 2(b)

Was the force he used or threatened “reasonable” in the circumstances as he perceived them to be?

Note: Only the use of reasonable force can be lawful; a person may not use more force than is reasonably necessary so as to defend himself or another against the threat which he genuinely anticipated.

Obviously, a person who genuinely thinks he or another is about to be attacked may react on the spur of the moment. He cannot realistically be expected to weigh up precisely how much force he needs to use to defend himself or that other person.

If he has only done what he honestly and instinctively thought was necessary, then that would be strong evidence that it was reasonable.

On the other hand, if he “goes over the top” – using force out of all proportion to what he genuinely anticipated might happen to him or another – then that would be unreasonable.

If your answer is “No, I’m sure it wasn’t”, go to Question 3.
If your answer is “Yes, or it may have been”, NOT GUILTY.

– Question 3

Was the conduct of all of them, taken together, such as would cause a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene to fear for his personal safety?

If your answer is “Yes, I’m sure it was”, GUILTY.
If your answer is “No, or it may not have”, NOT GUILTY."



https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/uk/questions-for-jury-to-consider-in-case-against-ben-stokes-and-ryan-ali-37211295.html


Last edited by K on Sun Sep 09, 2018 12:18 am; edited 3 times in total
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Pies4shaw 



Joined: 08 Oct 2007


PostPosted: Sun Sep 09, 2018 12:04 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

Only 11 off 40 balls for Stokesy in the first innings of the fifth test. Bowling neatly enough, though. 4 overs for 12, so far.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
K 



Joined: 09 Sep 2011


PostPosted: Sun Sep 09, 2018 12:09 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

If it's the 5th test now, did you mean the 4th test in the previous post? If so, can you please correct it?
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Pies4shaw 



Joined: 08 Oct 2007


PostPosted: Sun Sep 09, 2018 8:28 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

http://www.espncricinfo.com/series/18018/scorecard/1119553/england-vs-india-5th-test-ind-in-eng-2018

2/44 from 11 overs, including Kohli's wicket.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
K 



Joined: 09 Sep 2011


PostPosted: Sun Sep 09, 2018 8:48 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

Corresponding page for 4th Test:
http://www.espncricinfo.com/series/18018/scorecard/1119552/england-vs-india-4th-test-ind-in-eng-2018

[Confirms post above ( http://magpies.net/nick/bb/viewtopic.php?p=1863748#1863748 ) refers to 4th Test.]

BAS's figures in 3rd Test: 10, 2/68, 62.

Session 1, day 3, 5th Test, underway now.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Pies4shaw 



Joined: 08 Oct 2007


PostPosted: Tue Sep 11, 2018 10:33 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

37 from 36 in England’s second innings. 0/8 bowling at India for the second time.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
K 



Joined: 09 Sep 2011


PostPosted: Wed Sep 12, 2018 12:15 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

Day 5, session 2, 5th Test: India have a sniff. BS has 1 wicket, but was just hit out of the attack by Pant (three 4s in the over).

Update: Rashid gets the crucial breakthroughs and England win. BS does not bowl again, ending with 1/60 (13) in the 2nd innings, to go with 2/56 (16) in the 1st innings.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
K 



Joined: 09 Sep 2011


PostPosted: Wed Sep 12, 2018 10:26 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

The vital questions lingering over Ben Stokes's botched 'affray' trial ... [ctd.]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6072819/Vital-questions-linger-Ben-Stokes-trial-amid-dispute-police-CPS.html

"Why was ‘innocent bystander’ in dock. . . as England’s Alex Hales walked free?
...

Stokes’s team-mate Alex Hales ... was seen on CCTV kicking Mr Ali in the head while he lay on the floor injured. Hales was questioned under caution, but never arrested.

‘I struggle to understand how the Crown, in adopting the stance they have, have come to the conclusion that overt acts of direct violence used by an individual to someone on the floor is not worthy of prosecution,’ Stephen Mooney, representing Hale, told the judge in the absence of the jury.

In his closing speech, 29-year-old Hales’s alleged involvement was further highlighted by Stokes’s own barrister, Gordon Cole QC. He suggested that Hales could, in fact, have been responsible for Ali’s injuries — including a shattered eye socket.

Hales also faces accusations that he lied to police. On the night, when approached by a uniformed officer who had just arrested all-rounder Stokes, he said he did not witness the fight and only turned up after the fracas had finished.

An Avon and Somerset Police spokesman said of the decision not to charge Hales: ‘Early investigative advice was sought from the CPS in relation to Alex Hales’s involvement and a decision was made at a senior level to take no further action against him.

‘The decision was made by the detective inspector following the early advice from the CPS.’

But a CPS spokeswoman said in a statement: ‘The decision to charge Ryan Hale was taken in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors — that there was sufficient evidence to charge and that it was in the public interest to do so. The CPS was not asked to make a charging decision in respect of Alex Hales.’ "
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
K 



Joined: 09 Sep 2011


PostPosted: Wed Sep 19, 2018 3:42 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

Ben Stokes and Alex Hales charged with bringing game into disrepute

https://www.bbc.com/sport/cricket/45561380

'The independent Cricket Discipline Commission (CDC) hearing will be held on 5 and 7 December. ...

The CDC hearing will be held in private by a three-man panel chaired by former Derbyshire cricketer Tim O'Gorman. ...

Stokes and limited-overs batsman Hales have been charged with two counts of breaching an ECB directive which states:

"No-one may conduct themself in a manner or do any act or omission at any time which may be prejudicial to the interests of cricket, or which may bring the ECB, the game of cricket or any cricketer or group of cricketers into disrepute." '


[cricinfo says the other panel members are Chris Tickle, a former employment tribunal judge, and Mike Smith, and the CDC can impose a penalty of an unlimited fine or suspension and termination of registration.]
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board Forum Index -> Nick's Sports Bar All times are GMT + 10 Hours

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 3 of 6   

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum



Privacy Policy

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group