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

westoelad wrote:Hey well it's never dull following Durham even in the close season.

Definitely. One thing they can't be accused of us being boring!

From The Times:

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.

Going by this it seems there is no chance whatsoever of him getting a custodial sentence in the event of a guilty verdict so it's just a question of how long it takes to get the whole thing put to bed.
Could be a tricky decision - if he was to plead guilty it would presumably speed up the process but his statement mentions wanting to clear his name so suggests the plea will be not guilty. No doubt his lawyers will know exactly what to do.

Shocking news emerging from FTECB HQ. Legsidelizzy is reporting the board are in disagreement over Stokes with a majority not in favour of bringing him back immediately or for the NZ tour. Others are arguing that he's been banned for 4 months already and that is sufficient punishment.
Strauss and Tom Harrison are in the latter camp and want him back asap.

FTECB apparently also worried that they will look foolish if Stokes plays IPL and then for Durham but is still not allowed to play for England - have they just worked that one out?!

Here's the icing on the cake - the same Times article reckons FTECB have taken legal advice over whether their decision to make him unavailable for England could be challenged ... but they received conflicting opinions so have just decided they are within their rights to do so.

It also appears as if the internal punishment for Stokes and Hales will not take place until after the court case is concluded but that won't impact on the current discussions over when Stokes should return. I thought the reason he missed the Ashes was because he was suspended pending the outcome of that disciplinary procedure? So in theory he could come back now after a 4 month 'ban' and then get another ban regardless of what happens in court!

captaincolly wrote:According to legsidelizzy the maximum penalty is 3 years and an unlimited fine or, if the case concludes in the Magistrates court , the max penalty is 6 months.
I don't know anything about these things so this is a pure guess but I have a feeling a custodial sentence is highly unlikely. Time will tell.

slap on the wrist, maybe a fine, and a don't do it again or we'll throw the book at you

Durhamfootman wrote:

captaincolly wrote:According to legsidelizzy the maximum penalty is 3 years and an unlimited fine or, if the case concludes in the Magistrates court , the max penalty is 6 months.
I don't know anything about these things so this is a pure guess but I have a feeling a custodial sentence is highly unlikely. Time will tell.

slap on the wrist, maybe a fine, and a don't do it again or we'll throw the book at you

Yep. The sentencing guidelines ( obviously assuming a guilty verdict) seem to instruct the judge not to consider a custodial sentence unless the offence is so severe that fines/community sentence would be inappropriate-then they go on to suggest even in those circumstances a non-custodial sentence should be considered.
So it seems to me as if a custodial sentence would only be a possibility if it was some sort of outrageous incident or the guilty party was a multiple offender.

FTECB have got themselves in a fix here ( how unusual !) - if they bring him back into the fold now or at any stage before the court proceedings are concluded they will be in the farcical position of having 'banned' a player who had not been charged with any offence ,and was maintaining his innocence, only to bring him back after he has been charged with a potentially serious offence.
But if they don't bring him back they'll be in the farcical position of playing a home season of international cricket whilst their best player is playing IPL and then county cricket.
They could have avoided all of this if they hadn't set one of their beloved precedents by talking it upon themselves to ban him from the Ashes tour.

FTECB have are gong to recall Stokes for next months T20 games in NZ. So he was banned for no reason for months and now has been recalled just after being charged with affray! The right decision to bring him back but he should never have been banned in the first place.

captaincolly wrote:FTECB have are gong to recall Stokes for next months T20 games in NZ. So he was banned for no reason for months and now has been recalled just after being charged with affray! The right decision to bring him back but he should never have been banned in the first place.

Total contradiction to what FTECB ruled 4 months ago-standard FTECB practise.

westoelad wrote:

captaincolly wrote:FTECB have are gong to recall Stokes for next months T20 games in NZ. So he was banned for no reason for months and now has been recalled just after being charged with affray! The right decision to bring him back but he should never have been banned in the first place.

Total contradiction to what FTECB ruled 4 months ago-standard FTECB practise.

Yep! Another display of incompetence .

Reluctant to admit this but there's a degree of logic in this press release.
https://www.ecb.co.uk/news/596777

Durhamfootman wrote:

captaincolly wrote:According to legsidelizzy the maximum penalty is 3 years and an unlimited fine or, if the case concludes in the Magistrates court , the max penalty is 6 months.
I don't know anything about these things so this is a pure guess but I have a feeling a custodial sentence is highly unlikely. Time will tell.

slap on the wrist, maybe a fine, and a don't do it again or we'll throw the book at you

Still got a good chance of a not guilty decision .The CCTV does not tell all. Much depends on the evidence of the witnesses ( the 2 lads being abused/attacked ),the quality of the jury and the judges summing up ,if it all goes that far.
It is not all over until the last ball is bowled.

westoelad wrote:

captaincolly wrote:FTECB have are gong to recall Stokes for next months T20 games in NZ. So he was banned for no reason for months and now has been recalled just after being charged with affray! The right decision to bring him back but he should never have been banned in the first place.

Total contradiction to what FTECB ruled 4 months ago-standard FTECB practise.

Not really. They did not have the CPS decision then and suspension was probably the only sensible move they could make.
Now they have the decision to charge plus Stoke's statement to contest the matter in court they are no longer in limbo. If they continued the suspension it tends to undermine Stoke's version of events.
All in all, the CPS have made, imo,the appropriate charge decision,judging by the probable evidence that is in the public domain, and FTECB have ,on this occasion , have come up with a sensible decision.

westoelad wrote:Reluctant to admit this but there's a degree of logic in this press release.
https://www.ecb.co.uk/news/596777

i have just seen this after my previous post . not only logic but probably good legal basis too.

southwood wrote:

westoelad wrote:Reluctant to admit this but there's a degree of logic in this press release.
https://www.ecb.co.uk/news/596777

i have just seen this after my previous post . not only logic but probably good legal basis too.

Yes even FTECB proving the old adage that you can't be completely wrong the the whole of the time.

westoelad wrote:

southwood wrote:

westoelad wrote:Reluctant to admit this but there's a degree of logic in this press release.
https://www.ecb.co.uk/news/596777

i have just seen this after my previous post . not only logic but probably good legal basis too.

Yes even FTECB proving the old adage that you can't be completely wrong the the whole of the time.

Yep!