Sport England cricketer Ben Stokes was found not guilty of affray but his reputation has taken a battering.
England cricketer Ben Stokes was found not guilty of affray but his reputation has taken a battering.
The wheels of justice, according to the proverb, “turn slowly but grind exceedingly fine”. The first part certainly applies to the Ben Stokes affair that convulsed English cricket and preoccupied the media and public: 11 months elapsed between the violence and the verdict. Whether the system delivered an impeccable judgment is another matter: when the wheels stopped turning, it transpired that nothing untoward actually happened. Or, if it did, no one was responsible for it.
To recap: last September, there was a set-to outside a Bristol nightclub at 2.30am that pitted England cricketers Stokes – who was born in this country and whose parents are Kiwis – and Alex Hales against two members of the public and fellow boulevardiers, Ryan Ali and Ryan Hale. Stokes was arrested and released under investigation.
Footage of the incident quickly found its way into the public domain via the Sun newspaper/ website. It showed someone bearing a close resemblance to Stokes – who, it has to be said, is of distinctive appearance – punching two men with sufficient force to knock them down and out. Ali suffered a broken eye socket, a fractured tooth, a cut to the eyebrow and facial bruising; Hale got away with a superficial head wound and concussion. Stokes suffered a broken finger.
In January, Stokes, Ali and Hale were charged with affray. Hales wasn’t charged even though the footage showed him putting the boot into a man on the ground. When the trial got under way last month, the judge instructed the jury to find Hale not guilty. Perhaps this decision, and that not to charge Hales, arose out of a concern that the coincidental names – two Ryans, a Hale and a Hales – may confuse the jury.
After a seven-day trial, Ali and Stokes were found not guilty. Adding to the perplexity was the fact that, although much of the trial was taken up with competing narratives around Stokes’ behaviour in relation to a gay couple, the couple in question weren’t called upon to give evidence. Stokes maintained he came to Kai Barry’s and William O’Connor’s aid when they were subjected to homophobic abuse, hence the Alternative Commentary Collective dubbing him the “Gay Avenger”, and acted in self-defence when things turned ugly, hence the maxim that attack is the best form of defence.
The nightclub’s “door supervisor” – as bouncers are now designated – testified that, on the contrary, Stokes had homophobically mocked the pair.
There was no explanation as to why Barry and O’Connor didn’t testify; the judge actually warned the jury not to speculate on the reasons behind it. As soon as the trial was over, Barry and O’Connor embarked on a media blitz portraying Stokes as their saviour.
Stokes isn’t quite out of the woods as he’ll have to face an England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) disciplinary committee that could
charge him with bringing the game into disrepute. The expectation, however, is that being stripped of the England vice-captaincy, missing last summer’s Ashes series and losing a lucrative bat sponsorship will be deemed sufficient punishment.
In a sense, it’s academic, since Stokes resumed his international career here last summer. Although he’s struggled with the bat, he bowled England to a thrilling victory in the first test of the current series against India and was rushed back into the team after missing the second test due to his trial at the Bristol Crown Court. Then again, he must be aware that he’s now drinking in the Last Chance Saloon, hopefully more sedately than on the night of the non-affray when he necked several pints, five or six vodka and lemonades and some Jägerbombs (an energy drink spiked with a German digestif). The ECB has a history of tying itself in knots over off-field behavioural issues but surely wouldn’t tolerate its star all-rounder ending another mid-series, late-night rampage in police custody.
In his acceptance speech at the 1964 Republican National Convention, presidential nominee Barry Goldwater famously declared that “extremism in defence of liberty is no vice”. The lesson of the Stokes affair would seem to be that overkill in defence of beleaguered minorities is no crime. And perhaps the prosecution may be pondering Goldwater’s follow-up assertion: “Moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue.”
The lesson of the Stokes affair would seem to be that overkill in defence of beleaguered minorities is no crime.