So why was he charged with only affray and not abh/common assault? The judge did not permit the cps to add that to the charge based on the submissions made to him. You are being judge, jury and executioner based on one single piece of evidence without having all of the rest of the evidence. The jury did have all the evidence, presented over six whole days, and took barely a couple of hours to acquit him. I think six days of evidence will tell more of the truth than a very short video. Some won’t accept that. I though, whilst accepting sometimes, rarely, things don’t always go right, have faith in the British judicial system.
I think it's being presumptious to suggest he has been found not guilty on a technicality. There is a reason that the general public don't convict people. You sit in court and hear all the evidence then make a decision. They have done that and it's been unanimous. It should be respected and not inferred that someone has used money or got off on technicalities etc. Imagine if you were in court and people had you convicted without seeing all the fact- even before the trial had ended. It's out of order and disrespectful to the jurors. It implies that they are stupid and aren't capable of making a correct decision.
Clearly the CPS ballsed up. As i've said numerous times. I cant see any reason for a human being to run at an unarmed cowering man and knock him out fracturing his eye socket. Sticks and STONES. I'm interested why he's not guilty and what evidence or lack of was used to come to the verdict. It sounds like the jury were guided to the decision, which again backs up the lack of evidence from the start and that the CPS shouldn't have brought the case. He may be not guilty. But a violent thug he most certainly is.
The judge guided them through the evidence and has essentially explained the law. For whatever reason there was insufficient evidence to create reasonable doubt. The defences attempts were scattergun, and smacked of desperation. But it worked. As I said, he may have been found not guilty, but it doesn't mean he isn't a violent thug, and he will no doubt find his way back in court in the future if he cant control his temper or take his drink.
Your calling him a violent thug based on one act of stupidity where he wasn't the only person involved? Things like this happen in every town a city up and down the country... I'm not saying it's right but things happen in the heat of the moment to the most placid of people so to suggest he's a violent thug and condemn him to that because of a 2 minute loss of control is wrong in my opinion.
The Jury appear to have concluded it was all a big misunderstanding, Stokes thought he was defending his mate and the two gay guys but got the wrong end of the stick but the other guy also got the wrong end of the stick and thought he was going to be attacked so put his hands up holding a bottle . All a bit of a comedy really
And you're entitled to your view. And any individual who chases down another and knocks them out is also a violent thug. Or maybe I've got it wrong, and all those Millwall fans who charged the top tier at Wembley are honourable people who just had a few seconds of red mist and shouldn't be tarred with such a brush.
If that genuinely is what happened (and I'm not able to comment either way as I haven't been following the case particularly closely), there must be very serious questions asked as to whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the case.
To be fair to the Police and CPS anyone looking at the cctv would conclude that Stokes was out of control and an affray had taken place , ive never seen an unarmed man running away being pursued and knocked unconscious being interpreted as reasonable force before . Something happened in the court to make the jury decide otherwise . The Judge directing that the non appearance of three men at the centre of the incident shouldn’t influence the juries deliberations was probably something to do with it.
The difference being those millwall thugs take great pride in going to football and causing trouble on a Saturday whereas Stokes lost control once and will learn from his mistake. I'm not saying what he did wasn't disgraceful but it's hopefully something he will never be involved in again and he shouldn't be judged soley on that one event. As barnsley fans we ought to know better than to judge on 1 mistake after all we have a hero in Adam hammill who assaulted a paramedic but came back and learnt from it to become a better person as a result.
Given that an affray involves a "group" fighting in a public place that disturbs the peace, it may be that the jury thought that Stokesy laying a few out without resistance hardly constituted a group fight.
Absolutely agree. Anyone one else would have suffered the wrath of the law! When video evidence explicitly demonstrated his intent to cause harm and he walks .... what a sham!
And herein is the rub of it. How do you know each and everyone of those people who ran at Barnsley fans on the top tier had done that before? Is there evidence of prior misdemeanours? Was there sufficient evidence? Were they provoked by Barnsley fans to hit them? Were they abused? Were they in fear of their lives, were they protecting others? Try and find concrete evidence to convict those hundreds of Millwall fans who ran and punched stewards and Barnsley fans, and you'll find nothing but photographic or video evidence that could be argued with as it doesn't paint the whole story... as others have suggested with Stokes. Not always easy to prove without reasonable doubt on a letter of the law with unambiguous evidence. and for all we know, to his mates he could be boasting of the lad who had a go and got knocked out. Its just heresay that you suggest Millwall fans do that. I'm playing devils advocate obviously. I don't think there was much difference in the actions of the Millwall fans and Stokes. I don't recall many prosecutions that day, and those that were, I seem to recall more were crazily Barnsley fans. It shows how difficult things are to prove. Stokes actions, in my view were thuggish and excessive. The law has found him not guilty of affray. Simple as that really.
The trial went on for six days , every scrap of evidence presented in the court will have been discussed , debated etc & the judge will have summed up & advised the jury , who will then have retired & gone through everything before coming to the conclusion that Ben Stokes is not guilty , end of . We can all sit at home & come to our own conclusions but the one what mattered has been delivered , therefore Mr Stokes should be able to resume his employment & get on with his life .
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. That's the definition apparently. I can't believe a jury sat through an entire trial, listened to the evidence and reached a verdict without asking folk on social media who saw a few seconds of cctv.
Crazy isn't it?! Same folk who probably think they could do the head coach job. The world is full of armchair experts.
Had it a Millwall fan battering two Barnsley fans in similar fashion I doubt we'd see so many defendants of the behaviour or the decision.
Surely this outcome is a glorious victory worthy of great celebration! You can viciously assault who you like, as long as you get charged with the wrong offence.