creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

[Enoch]

Candy from babies.

[TANGODANCER]

Fully deserved. Conditions in our favour? No sir, same for everybody and we gave them a hammering they'd happilly give us given the chance. Broad and Jimmy on top form and Woakes a star.Shortest time for a test match since 1888! Brilliant, well done lads. Great all round team performance.

[Prufrock]

I mean, the conditions really were in our favour.

[Prufrock]

Meanwhile I can't decide if I actually like cricket or just have a huge man crush on Jimmy.

[TANGODANCER]

I mean, the conditions really were in our favour.

Of course they were; it's England.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Just a street fight then. Fair enough.

I'm sure there's a context, it's not in that video but there could have a bottle, there could have been aggression by the others. That might be an argument for the first flurry. But at the end his head is gone, he's chasing someone who clearly isn't a threat anymore and he's absolutely battered him.

Can't be defending that.

Well somebody did, and successfully too.

[BWFC_Insane]

Just a street fight then. Fair enough.

I'm sure there's a context, it's not in that video but there could have a bottle, there could have been aggression by the others. That might be an argument for the first flurry. But at the end his head is gone, he's chasing someone who clearly isn't a threat anymore and he's absolutely battered him.

Can't be defending that.

Well somebody did, and successfully too.

Wrong charge though wasn't it?

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Just a street fight then. Fair enough.

I'm sure there's a context, it's not in that video but there could have a bottle, there could have been aggression by the others. That might be an argument for the first flurry. But at the end his head is gone, he's chasing someone who clearly isn't a threat anymore and he's absolutely battered him.

Can't be defending that.

Well somebody did, and successfully too.

Wrong charge though wasn't it?

According to the judge, who overruled it, no it wasn't. Also according to the pair of gay blokes who didn't give evidence, that was no too...
The only miscarriage of justice evident anywhere near this case was the failure to prosecute Hales.

[BWFC_Insane]

Just a street fight then. Fair enough.

I'm sure there's a context, it's not in that video but there could have a bottle, there could have been aggression by the others. That might be an argument for the first flurry. But at the end his head is gone, he's chasing someone who clearly isn't a threat anymore and he's absolutely battered him.

Can't be defending that.

Well somebody did, and successfully too.

Wrong charge though wasn't it?

According to the judge, who overruled it, no it wasn't. Also according to the pair of gay blokes who didn't give evidence, that was no too...
The only miscarriage of justice evident anywhere near this case was the failure to prosecute Hales.

He overruled it because it was introduced too late, when a defence against affray was already prepared.

My (probably wrong) understanding is they opted for affray because they didn't have the evidence to support ABH. However, my personal view is it would have been easier to convince a jury of an ABH conviction than an Affray one given the evidence we've seen to date. This is probably entirely and utterly wrong like.

[Prufrock]

With the obvious huge caveat of not having sat through the days of evidence the jury did and based on the CCTV footage, looks to me like another example to add to the list of stuff you can get away with if you're a celebrity (see Gerrard, Steven)!

ECB hearing will be interesting. Not a million miles from the John Terry situation and wonder if the way CA dealt with the (admittedly very different) ball-tampering scandal will weigh in their minds about how tough they should look.

My finger-in-the-air reckon is he and Hales get fined, Stokes "banned" for a few tests but backdated to include the Ashes and free to play from now.

[BWFC_Insane]

With the obvious huge caveat of not having sat through the days of evidence the jury did and based on the CCTV footage, looks to me like another example to add to the list of stuff you can get away with if you're a celebrity (see Gerrard, Steven)!

ECB hearing will be interesting. Not a million miles from the John Terry situation and wonder if the way CA dealt with the (admittedly very different) ball-tampering scandal will weigh in their minds about how tough they should look.

My finger-in-the-air reckon is he and Hales get fined, Stokes "banned" for a few tests but backdated to include the Ashes and free to play from now.

Did it meet the criteria for affray? My basic understanding of these things is it probably didn’t. Obviously his money buys him the best defence possible.

[Prufrock]

Depends what you mean by "meet the criteria".

In one sense, it definitely did. If once the prosecution has finished its case the judge does not think that, taking its evidence at its highest, a reasonable jury can convict, he or she won't let the case go to the jury and the defendant will be acquitted. I suspect, but don't know, that is what happened to the third guy (or P dropped its case ahead of the judge making that decision). So there was certainly enough that a jury *could* convict (albeit possibly only if it totally believed the evidence of one party and not at all the other).

In another sense, the criteria might well not have been met. Juries don't give reasons for their verdicts. It is possible they acquitted because they did not think the criteria for affray were met. Alternatively they thought the criteria for affray were met but that they believed Stokes was acting reasonably in self-defence.

I see the other chap was acquitted to. Possibly that means the jury felt it wasn't affray (not sure they'd both be defending themself though possible given there were others involved).

Re: ABH, sounds like a charging f*ck-up by the overpaid CPS fat-cat who no doubt had hours of time to consider it between courses at lunch. I must say, from the CCTV I'd be surprised if self-defence flew (unless it's the celebrity effect) so possibly the jury thought the "notional bystander" test wasn't met. (Plus celebrity factor, he coughed, the cynic). No such test for ABH (though self defence would still apply).

[BWFC_Insane]

Depends what you mean by "meet the criteria".

In one sense, it definitely did. If once the prosecution has finished its case the judge does not think that, taking its evidence at its highest, a reasonable jury can convict, he or she won't let the case go to the jury and the defendant will be acquitted. I suspect, but don't know, that is what happened to the third guy (or P dropped its case ahead of the judge making that decision). So there was certainly enough that a jury *could* convict (albeit possibly only if it totally believed the evidence of one party and not at all the other).

In another sense, the criteria might well not have been met. Juries don't give reasons for their verdicts. It is possible they acquitted because they did not think the criteria for affray were met. Alternatively they thought the criteria for affray were met but that they believed Stokes was acting reasonably in self-defence.

I see the other chap was acquitted to. Possibly that means the jury felt it wasn't affray (not sure they'd both be defending themself though possible given there were others involved).

Re: ABH, sounds like a charging f*ck-up by the overpaid CPS fat-cat who no doubt had hours of time to consider it between courses at lunch. I must say, from the CCTV I'd be surprised if self-defence flew (unless it's the celebrity effect) so possibly the jury thought the "notional bystander" test wasn't met. (Plus celebrity factor, he coughed, the cynic). No such test for ABH (though self defence would still apply).

My understanding is, that if they believed he was acting in self defence even if unreasonably so, that affray is out the window, full stop. Whereas ABH requires self defence to be proportionate and reasonable. Might be wrong like. Read a lot of internet experts but you never know if they really are..

[Enoch]

looks to me like another example to add to the list of stuff you can get away with if you're a celebrity (see Gerrard, Steven)!

End of for me. Toss it about all you want and get as technical as you wish, the fella's a knob.

As of course is that c*nt Gerrard.

[Prufrock]

Depends what you mean by "meet the criteria".

In one sense, it definitely did. If once the prosecution has finished its case the judge does not think that, taking its evidence at its highest, a reasonable jury can convict, he or she won't let the case go to the jury and the defendant will be acquitted. I suspect, but don't know, that is what happened to the third guy (or P dropped its case ahead of the judge making that decision). So there was certainly enough that a jury *could* convict (albeit possibly only if it totally believed the evidence of one party and not at all the other).

In another sense, the criteria might well not have been met. Juries don't give reasons for their verdicts. It is possible they acquitted because they did not think the criteria for affray were met. Alternatively they thought the criteria for affray were met but that they believed Stokes was acting reasonably in self-defence.

I see the other chap was acquitted to. Possibly that means the jury felt it wasn't affray (not sure they'd both be defending themself though possible given there were others involved).

Re: ABH, sounds like a charging f*ck-up by the overpaid CPS fat-cat who no doubt had hours of time to consider it between courses at lunch. I must say, from the CCTV I'd be surprised if self-defence flew (unless it's the celebrity effect) so possibly the jury thought the "notional bystander" test wasn't met. (Plus celebrity factor, he coughed, the cynic). No such test for ABH (though self defence would still apply).

My understanding is, that if they believed he was acting in self defence even if unreasonably so, that affray is out the window, full stop. Whereas ABH requires self defence to be proportionate and reasonable. Might be wrong like. Read a lot of internet experts but you never know if they really are..

That doesn't sound right to me at all. As far as I know the elements of self defence are the same across the board.

Sounds like your "expert" has got confused between the two elements of self defence.

First you have to consider the circumstances the D genuinely (even if unreasonably) believed to be the case.

Then you have to consider what is the the reasonable and proportionate response in the circumstances D believed to be the case.

So if D genuinely believes that the V has got a knife, even if it is blindingly obvious he's just holding his phone, you consider what would be a reasonable response if the other person had a knife.

The first q doesn't apply if Ds belief is genuine but only came about because he was hammered.

[BWFC_Insane]

Depends what you mean by "meet the criteria".

In one sense, it definitely did. If once the prosecution has finished its case the judge does not think that, taking its evidence at its highest, a reasonable jury can convict, he or she won't let the case go to the jury and the defendant will be acquitted. I suspect, but don't know, that is what happened to the third guy (or P dropped its case ahead of the judge making that decision). So there was certainly enough that a jury *could* convict (albeit possibly only if it totally believed the evidence of one party and not at all the other).

In another sense, the criteria might well not have been met. Juries don't give reasons for their verdicts. It is possible they acquitted because they did not think the criteria for affray were met. Alternatively they thought the criteria for affray were met but that they believed Stokes was acting reasonably in self-defence.

I see the other chap was acquitted to. Possibly that means the jury felt it wasn't affray (not sure they'd both be defending themself though possible given there were others involved).

Re: ABH, sounds like a charging f*ck-up by the overpaid CPS fat-cat who no doubt had hours of time to consider it between courses at lunch. I must say, from the CCTV I'd be surprised if self-defence flew (unless it's the celebrity effect) so possibly the jury thought the "notional bystander" test wasn't met. (Plus celebrity factor, he coughed, the cynic). No such test for ABH (though self defence would still apply).

My understanding is, that if they believed he was acting in self defence even if unreasonably so, that affray is out the window, full stop. Whereas ABH requires self defence to be proportionate and reasonable. Might be wrong like. Read a lot of internet experts but you never know if they really are..

That doesn't sound right to me at all. As far as I know the elements of self defence are the same across the board.

Sounds like your "expert" has got confused between the two elements of self defence.

First you have to consider the circumstances the D genuinely (even if unreasonably) believed to be the case.

Then you have to consider what is the the reasonable and proportionate response in the circumstances D believed to be the case.

So if D genuinely believes that the V has got a knife, even if it is blindingly obvious he's just holding his phone, you consider what would be a reasonable response if the other person had a knife.

The first q doesn't apply if Ds belief is genuine but only came about because he was hammered.

What people seemed to say was that since affray requires a jury to be convinced that a bystander of reasonable firmness (whether present or not) would be "fearing for their personal safety" in the scenario that as soon as you believe the motive is self defence affray is out of the window because a bystander wouldn't fear their safety under that circumstance given there was an intended target. Even if the response is OTT and "unreasonable self defence" affray goes because it fails the bystander test.

There were flow charts and everything.

Like I say it could be absolute nonsense, but did seem like people who knew at least vaguely what they were talking about.

[Prufrock]

I've seen the pathway flowchart and it doesn't say that. You have to answer both questions. They may have come up with their own flowchart but I'm pretty sure they're wrong.

The reasoning you have set out doesn't make sense. As an extreme example, if I believed someone was attacking me and so defended myself by chucking a grenade at him, or swinging round a massive stick, a notional bystander might well fear for their personal safety.

[BWFC_Insane]

I've seen the pathway flowchart and it doesn't say that. You have to answer both questions. They may have come up with their own flowchart but I'm pretty sure they're wrong.

The reasoning you have set out doesn't make sense. As an extreme example, if I believed someone was attacking me and so defended myself by chucking a grenade at him, or swinging round a massive stick, a notional bystander might well fear for their personal safety.

In that scenario the charge wouldn't be affray though would it?

[Prufrock]

Yes. If the CPS thought my actions were enough to cause a notional bystander to fear for their safety. You can, and often do, have several charges on the same indictment. Charging affray doesn't stop you charging other offences too.

The point of the crime of affray is to protect eg the crowd outside a pub when someone kicks off.

Clearly somebody overreacting in self defence is capable of other people standing by to fear for their safety (catching a stray punch etc)

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Yes. If the CPS thought my actions were enough to cause a notional bystander to fear for their safety. You can, and often do, have several charges on the same indictment. Charging affray doesn't stop you charging other offences too.

The point of the crime of affray is to protect eg the crowd outside a pub when someone kicks off.

Clearly somebody overreacting in self defence is capable of other people standing by to fear for their safety (catching a stray punch etc)

Well, fxcking strangely enough, it turned out to be a fist fight in the street just as I said after all, and the law can do one, as I said originally. (and no, it's got fxck all to do with celebrity, money or bribes either).
(plus it turns out that the gay couple back up Stokes 100%, but the defence refused to use them because they were pisseder than pissed newts and thought they'd been with Stokes et al all night, whereas CCTV showed they'd been drinking with 'just the other cricketers who'd never left Mbargo'.)