Cricket-Match-Special ... A forum for discussion

I've never really understood the ECBs handling of this matter. Yes, it initially made sense that he would be removed from the selection pool while there was a criminal investigation hanging over him, but then they let him go and play in New Zealand and be in the IPL auction. He's an ECB employee, it doesn't matter who he's playing for it's essentially the same as him playing for England.

So i guess he will play in IPL. Rajasthan Royals will be pleased to know he is available.

Has made a decent comeback considering he missed lot of matches since the brawl.

Trial date is set for August 6th, slab dab middle of the India test series. You do have to wonder if they did that on purpose.

Is five months from plea hearing to trial date normal? Is it just because of the case load of the court, or the time needed for parties to prepare (surely not, after six months from the incident), or another reason?

It's not actually on a test match day, but it's one day after the first test concludes. And it could easily go on long enough to eat into the second test. Even if it doesn't, you'd have to assume Ben will miss the second test, as he'll miss all the preparation. And would you pick him for the first test (his mind may well not be on the job in hand)?

I'm not saying the court has a duty to work around his schedule, far from it. If you're appearing on a criminal charge, your personal inconvenience is the last thing the court should care about. But the timing, if coincidental, seems to be rather unfortunate.

Mr Stokes and his teammate Alex Hales left the nightclub at 00:46 but both returned at 02:08.

Bouncer Andrew Cunningham explained to the pair the club was closed and they would not be allowed in.

However, an "obviously upset" Mr Stokes became "aggressive" and insulted Mr Cunningham about his appearance, jurors heard.

Mr Cunningham said Mr Stokes's attention then turned to two "openly gay" men - Kai Barry and William O'Connor - outside the venue.

He claimed the cricketer had mimicked their voices and mannerisms in what he described as "a derogatory way".

Mr Corsellis said CCTV footage showed Mr Stokes "copying hand gestures made by the men", while the bouncer claimed he had flicked a cigarette butt at Mr O'Connor.

Mr Cunningham reportedly said to Mr Stokes: "If you want to start on anyone, start on me."

"Mr Stokes's behaviour outside the nightclub sets an important tone for what happened that night," Mr Corsellis said.

"He was clearly frustrated and annoyed. He took to acting in a provocative and offensive way towards Mr Cunningham and then Mr Barry and Mr O'Connor."

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

None of this looks very good AT ALL.

Depending on where you sit on this; Saturday may well be the last time we see him in an England shirt.

The Professor wrote:None of this looks very good AT ALL.

Depending on where you sit on this; Saturday may well be the last time we see him in an England shirt.

Looks like he acted like a complete d.ck but I'd be surprised to see him not play again. I suspect he may get a ban, though unsure.

Might be best to let the trial proceed and wait until we her what the other witnesses have to say...

alfie wrote:Might be best to let the trial proceed and wait until we her what the other witnesses have to say...

I have him hung already

unsurprising that the case for the prosecution paints him in a very bad light

2 sides, of course. Doubtless the defence will paint a very different picture

alfie wrote:Might be best to let the trial proceed and wait until we her what the other witnesses have to say...

Can’t wait to hear the sound of sandpaper rubbing over the cracks....

Even I think it's part of a trial, there's two halves. Let's see how he defends himself on the above accusation or if more evidence is presented to support it.

If it's true, he shouldn't play for England for a.while. what's described is not acceptable

Durhamfootman wrote:unsurprising that the case for the prosecution paints him in a very bad light

2 sides, of course. Doubtless the defence will paint a very different picture

Spot on DFM, but the prosecution does seem to be focusing on Stokes as opposed to the other two, who are up the same charge

Bear in mind the supposed mocking of the gay men was in the statement from one of the bouncers who Stokes seemed to have major issues with, and refused to shake hands with him.

No doubt the defence will paint a totally different picture, but I guess the truth will come out when the gay men take the stand. Not sure whether they are witnesses for or against the prosecution. I seem to remember when they presented themselves to the police they seemed to put Stokes in a good light.

It seems likely at this point that he will be found guilty, the CCTV doesn't lie, and the most likely sentence is a suspended one. Although I did read somewhere that the suspended sentence for affray had been removed from a judge's powers and it was either prison or a massive fine, I can't see that's true?

Interesting following the case online, poor guy has to rely on members of the public to come to a decision on his guilt, I like the way they were all questioned before they were sworn in if they were big England cricket fans? What would people on this forum have retorted?!

budgetmeansbudget wrote:Interesting following the case online, poor guy has to rely on members of the public to come to a decision on his guilt, I like the way they were all questioned before they were sworn in if they were big England cricket fans? What would people on this forum have retorted?!

Apparently they were all asked if they were cricket fans and all answered no ( one sarcastic post on Twitter suggested if anyone answered yes they'd be sent to Lord's to open the batting with Cook.)

When he was first charged The Times article suggested to me ( and I know nothing about legal matters so may well be entirely wrong ) that a custodial sentence is highly unlikely:

Affray is a public order offence, under the Public Order Act 1986, in which two or more people use or threaten unlawful violence against another. It carries a maximum penalty when tried at magistrates court of a fine or up to six months in prison. If tried at crown court, the judge would have the option of sentencing him to three years in prison.

Sentencing guidelines state that a custodial sentence “must not be imposed” unless the offence or a combination of offences are so serious that neither a fine nor a community sentence can be justified. The guidelines stress that there is no general definition of this threshold and that even where it is believed to have been met, judges should consider a community order

My interpretation of that is a custodial sentence is not an option in the vast majority of cases and probably won't be imposed even when it is an option.

Interesting that affray is a public order offence - as opposed to, say, gbh or assault. I’m no expert but surely the prosecution has to prove that members of the public were in fear, at risk etc. from the affray. None of the defendants sought charges to be bought against each other, which suggests to me some agreement between their lawyers as to how to defend the case or get as light a sentence as possible.