Chris O'Connor
Player Valuation: £35m
Yes from all the videos you would think on the surface there can be no defence, but he has a top legal team representing him and will have been given the appropriate advice on how to plea, and exactly what consequences that may have, although he doesn't have to take that advice.
An early guilty plea...
offers a one-third discount on a sentence
and indicates remorse and acceptance of responsibility on the defendant’s part which can be taken into account too.
So if he was advised to plead not guilty it does mean there is almost certainly a case to be put.
The prosecution can also give a very slanted version of events, not necessarily very accurate, and what led up to them, both in the causes any provocations and the extent of any injuries both physical and otherwise, it's their job to do so.
I invariably find i'm convinced of the correct verdict after hearing only one side of the story only to possibly alter that view a little later.
From what i've heard....
(although tbf I have discussed it with some lawyer and barrister friends too)
For this type of offence and seriousness, if he is found guilty of affray, a custodial sentence is almost certain although in his particular case they suspect it's likely to be suspended.
A sentence of between four and twelve months (suspended?) is perhaps more realistic than the three years max often touted in the press
Working on the assumption Stokes has no previous criminal convictions and is committed to engaging fully with interventions to prevent a recurrence of such behaviour, the Judge will be more likely to suspend the imprisonment and be lenient.
He may get a community service order in addition but as with footballers they can usually be worked around his work commitments, although touring may be an issue.
For the ECB, who have in effect punished him very heavily already, by banning him from the iconic ashes series and all other cricket for months, even though at that stage he had not been found guilty of anything, to try and meet out a further period of punishment would be ludicrous and highly contentious and may well leave them open to legal action themselves, it would be like being punished not twice but three times for the same crime.
If they had allowed him to carry on playing until found guilty in the civil courts, they would have every right to decide on their own additional measures too, but having punished him once already in missing such an iconic series, that right is far less certain and may in effect have expired to all intents and purposes, although 'unofficially' not selecting him can't be ruled out.
