Search results

Affray, maximum sentence 3 years ABH maximum sentence 5 years

I think that in this case both of them say the other one started it and there are no reliable independent witnesses to counter that; in that case it's 50/50 and you cannot convict on that (has to be beyond reasonable doubt). Hence the prosecution going for affray. As for GBH (or ABH or even...

Not Guilty !

What a rude, angry and ignorant man you are. They are women who choose to wear an item of clothing because they feel it is part of their religion. Given that there are over two million muslims in the UK I would say that it IS now part (albeit a small part) of our culture. Personally I don't like...

Why shouldn't they ?

No such offence. At least not since the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act. All justices swear an oath that contains "I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this realm, without fear or favour, affection or ill will." So HH's fondness, or otherwise, for cricket...

I just reread your post and, if you were expecting me to respond then apologies for not doing so. All I can say is that in my 9 years I never experienced, or heard of, a case being too complex for magistrates. That includes a murder committal I sat on. I'm not so arrogant as to think I know it...

If it cannot be determined who threw the first punch, then the person who did the injuring could argue self defence (ie "he came of worse but he started it"). To prove Affray it is not necessary to prove who started it, merely that a bystander would fear for his safety.

If he over stepped the mark, then the batsman would get a free hit

Dropped before the trial, after the prosecution evidence (ie no case to answer) or found not guilty ?

Why not ?

Nope. Complexity doesn't come into it other than if there is a specific point of law but in that case a bench of three will always have a legal advisor who is a qualified solicitor or barrister (A DJ is a qualified solicitor in his/her own right). On the second point, there is some anecdotal...

Interesting that it was sent to Crown Court rather than the defendants electing CC trial. This obviously means that the District Judge (single judge sitting as a magistrate) feels that the offence, IF PROVEN, is serious enough for a Crown Court penalty. To explain, to decide mode of trial, the...

Hard to say. One bench of three (or a District Judge(MC)) might decide that it's not pre-booked specifically for him and say no, Another bench might take a more sympathetic view. A lot of it would depend on whether the prosecutor opposed it.

His solicitor could ask for an adjournment; if they did the Magistrates would consider it but I've no idea what they would decide. As for a pre-booked holiday, you would generally be granted an adjournment under those circumstances, same as if you had exams.

They are speculating that the Magistrates will decide that the offence is not serious enough to send to Crown Court. Of course, it is Stokes' choice whether he has it heard in a Mags or CC. Only he knows whether he would do that. If found guilty, then the Magistrates or Judge will decide which...

It does seem strange that they've ok'd him to play now. The ECB could have cleared him for the Ashes by asking him if he was going to contest any charge should one be laid and by asking any solicitor (or judge/magistrate) how long it was likely to take to go to trial if he was charged.

Only once. It was a Crystal Palace fan. He was only there as a witness but you can't be too careful.

Do it ! https://www.gov.uk/become-magistrate/apply-to-be-a-magistrate

No. I think the way it currently works is right. Sentencing guidelines are there to prevent exactly this. It doesn't matter whether you're famous or not, you should receive broadly the same penalty as anyone else convicted under similar circumstances.