Cricket 24/7  

Welcome to the Cricket 24/7.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. There are also more forums available to members, such as the Lounge - where members chat about just about anything under the sun except cricket!

Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.


Go Back   Cricket 24/7 > Cricket Discussion Forums > International Cricket
Register FAQDonate Members List Calendar Casino Articles Terms of Use Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 29th November 2017, 19:21   #281
Corbo 60
Posting God
 
Corbo 60's Avatar
'Blue Blistering Barnacles.'
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: In Limbo.
Team(s): Norwich City Kent CCC
Posts: 11,645
These moral maze issues seem to keep popping up.
__________________
I was dreaming I was awake, then I woke up and found I was asleep.
Corbo 60 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th November 2017, 19:31   #282
WeAreKent
County Pro
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 642
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevieh View Post
I hear what you are saying, WAK, that the case hasn’t been dropped before the CPS gets a chance to weigh in.

The conjecture part is that Canterbury will rescind any offer/interest in having Stokes play and that he will be almost immediately recalled to the UK.


The police could have prosecuted for common assualt without reference to the CPS. The only reason for refering it to the CPS is that a more serious charge is potentially in prospect- such as ABH.

That's why this is a massive blow for Stokes and the ECB. When he was issued him his NOC last Friday and he flew to NZ, it strongly suggested that both player and the ECB had been given a nod and a wink that the police were about to drop the case. The opposite has turned out to be the case.

Canterbury have got enough problems with one of their players last week convicted of assault and currently awaiting sentencing. After today's development, they surely need Stokes and all the baggage that comes with him like a hole in the head.
__________________
Cricket's existential crisis : change or die.

Last edited by WeAreKent : 30th November 2017 at 07:43.
WeAreKent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th November 2017, 23:26   #283
stevieh
World Class
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Team(s): England, Kent, Canada
Posts: 6,712
There are a number of interpretations of the latest developments, but they fall into the realm of speculation and supposition.

I read the board of the NZ club was considering Stokes’ invitation to play. If they are like many clubs, the lure of added publicity and interest brought on by the situation may override any misgivings about the “hassles”.
stevieh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th November 2017, 01:45   #284
Michelle Fivefer
Posting Goddess
 
Michelle Fivefer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: North West England
Team(s): England, Lancashire
Posts: 41,913
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevieh View Post
I hear what you are saying, WAK, that the case hasn’t been dropped before the CPS gets a chance to weigh in.

The conjecture part is that Canterbury will rescind any offer/interest in having Stokes play and that he will be almost immediately recalled to the UK.
Surely not a case of the CPS “getting a chance to weigh in”. If the police thought there was nothing or not enough in the incident worth pursuing further they wouldn’t have referred the case to CPS in the first place. However, I have to admit that my knowledge of police procedure apropos pursuing cases in court comes mainly from the TV shows Law and Order and Law and Order UK.
__________________
As balanced and focused as the next man
Michelle Fivefer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th November 2017, 02:38   #285
MRNC4.0
International Material
 
MRNC4.0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Melbourne
Team(s): Victoria
Posts: 1,501
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevieh View Post
Once his suspension has spanned 2 ODIs plus 2 Tests, there is no logical reason why Stokes would not have been deemed to have been punished enough for his misdemeanours, given that there are no criminal charges to answer to.

hmmmm.
MRNC4.0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th November 2017, 08:43   #286
Jock McTuffnel v3
World Class
 
Jock McTuffnel v3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Cambridge
Team(s): England
Posts: 5,876
Of course they could be passing to the CPS for advice as they are unsure if they will be able to secure a conviction
__________________
Jock McTuffnel v3 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 30th November 2017, 10:28   #287
stevieh
World Class
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Team(s): England, Kent, Canada
Posts: 6,712
Quote:
Originally Posted by WeAreKent View Post
The police could have prosecuted for common assualt without reference to the CPS. The only reason for refering it to the CPS is that a more serious charge is potentially in prospect- such as ABH.

That's why this is a massive blow for Stokes and the ECB. When he was issued him his NOC last Friday and he flew to NZ, it strongly suggested that both player and the ECB had been given a nod and a wink that the police were about to drop the case. The opposite has turned out to be the case.

Canterbury have got enough problems with one of their players last week convicted of assault and currently awaiting sentencing. After today's development, they surely need Stokes and all the baggage that comes with him like a hole in the head.
I notice you have changed your posting now that the announcement was made
http://www.bbc.com/sport/cricket/42177627
stevieh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th November 2017, 13:25   #288
WeAreKent
County Pro
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 642
Here are the official CPS guidelines that relate to Stokes's case:


'If following assessment a police decision maker considers there is sufficient evidence to charge a suspect and the case is one which this Guidance requires to be referred to a prosecutor to determine whether the suspect is to be charged the case shall be so referred'.


From that we can discern this much:


a) The police have concluded there is sufficient evidence to charge Stokes.



b) The charge under consideration cannot be the lesser offence of common assault, a charge which the police would bring themselves and is not a matter for the CPS as it falls outside the 'Guiidance' mentioned above , but is almost certainly the more serious charge of ABH.


c) The only grounds on which the CPS will not procede with a prosecution is if either (i) they assess that they are unlikely to secure a guilty verdict in court (based not so much on the police evidence but by assessing what the defence case might be and taking a judgement on whether it might convince a jury) or (ii) they conclude that a prosecution is against the public interest.

I don't think the Canterbury cricketing authorities understand the English legal system. When it is pointed out to them the postion in which Stokes is now in, I find it inconceivable that they will still think he can play for them - especially as one of their players was convicted in court of an assault only last week and is currently awaiting sentence.
__________________
__________________
Cricket's existential crisis : change or die.
WeAreKent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th November 2017, 15:55   #289
stevieh
World Class
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Team(s): England, Kent, Canada
Posts: 6,712
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michelle Fivefer View Post
Surely not a case of the CPS “getting a chance to weigh in”. If the police thought there was nothing or not enough in the incident worth pursuing further they wouldn’t have referred the case to CPS in the first place. However, I have to admit that my knowledge of police procedure apropos pursuing cases in court comes mainly from the TV shows Law and Order and Law and Order UK.
Pardon my informality or jocularity in describing what I am sure is highly serious and defined in legal terminology largely opaque to the laypersons among us.

There are no doubt a range of considerations and criteria used when referring a case to the CPS for their deliberations, some of which are outlined, helpfully, by WeAreKent on more than one thread here.

I won’t add further to the speculation of what might transpire except to observe that Stokes was not the only “thug” involved in the case being referred to the CPS, and the dossier of evidence may also implicate another, who came off the worse for wear and was hospitalized yet may also be “booked”.
stevieh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th November 2017, 19:55   #290
JS180
Backyard Cricketer
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 99
What was most annoying was the Aussies set blatantly obvious traps in the field, which being the nice guys we are, decided to fall face first into them.
For example they put a man out for the pull shot, they didn't even bother to do in sneakily, so our batsmen could see where he was positioned before the ball had even left the bowlers hand. So what do we do, we pull the ball straight down that fielder's throat. I mean how stupid can you actually get?

I'm convinced Broad's best days are behind him, he was poor in the summer and apart from the odd spell in the first innings looked pretty mediocre in the 1st test. What we really needed was a fully fit Mark Wood (not the half injured done from this summer)who bowls quick and aggressive.

Also why would we put Jake Ball in ahead of Overton, when the former only a couple of weeks before the first test badly sprained/twisted his ankle? We patched him up and sent him out and tbh looked nowhere near fully fit, it's time to put Overton in imo.
JS180 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st December 2017, 22:06   #291
Michelle Fivefer
Posting Goddess
 
Michelle Fivefer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: North West England
Team(s): England, Lancashire
Posts: 41,913
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevieh View Post
Pardon my informality or jocularity in describing what I am sure is highly serious and defined in legal terminology largely opaque to the laypersons among us.

There are no doubt a range of considerations and criteria used when referring a case to the CPS for their deliberations, some of which are outlined, helpfully, by WeAreKent on more than one thread here.

I won’t add further to the speculation of what might transpire except to observe that Stokes was not the only “thug” involved in the case being referred to the CPS, and the dossier of evidence may also implicate another, who came off the worse for wear and was hospitalized yet may also be “booked”.
I hold my hand up to being a layperson.
__________________
As balanced and focused as the next man
Michelle Fivefer is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:50.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© Cricket247.org