Stokes court case sets up lively exchanges for next Ashes

So one moment Ben Stokes is asking tough questions of the Indian batsmen during the thrilling final day of a wonderful test match, and a few days later, he is in a Bristol court undergoing a more literal cross examination.

Stokes trial for affray is incomplete, and the circumstances of the fight outside the Mbargo nightclub that left two men battered and bruised remains disputed.

So we won’t know until a verdict is reached whether Stokes maintains his status in Great Britain as an “England test star”, or is demoted to “Kiwi-born allrounder”.

But with Stokes wearing his defendant suit instead of his whites on Thursday, his sole consolation was that rain washed out the entire first day’s play at Lord’s.

No such delay in Bristol, however, where from the evidence presented so far, Stokes was either the roaringly drunk and aggressive provocateur who tried to buy his way back into the nightclub (offering a doorman £300 might be the new definition of “quite thirsty”); then cruelly mimicked two gay patrons, flicked a cigarette at one of them and later knocked out two men during a wild street brawl.

Or, alternatively, Stokes was the Good Samaritan who protected two gay men subjected to homophobic taunts before defending himself against brutal attackers armed with bottles and a metal street sign.

According to this version, one of Stokes’ assailants said “Shut up or I’ll bottle you”. Depending on where you play your cricket, this is an extremely intimidating threat or merely the sort of thing you expect to hear from a frustrated fast bowler.

The Duckworth Lewis System of English justice will reach its verdict in coming days, subject to the use of the DRS of the Appeals Court should an unfavourable outcome be reached.

But regardless of the verdict, Stokes’ unusual departure from the test series immediately after he had taken 4-40 in India’s second innings raises a few pertinent points.

Most obviously, why was Stokes playing that first test with his trial still looming, his rehabilitation having preceded his acquittal in some eyes — including those who arranged his participation for Canterbury last summer.

Yes, innocent until proven guilty. But there is a strong argument Stokes’ mere involvement in the brawl, hours after he had played an ODI, demanded his suspension until the case had been heard in court, given the disturbing CCTV footage.

Naturally, Stokes’ case has attracted keen interest from concerned and caring Aussies — not least because it provides useful camouflage after the ball tampering disgrace.

Australia benefited greatly from Stokes’ absence from last summer’s almost embarrassingly one-sided Ashes series, where his muscular presence with bat and ball might have given a particularly limp England lineup some backbone.

But Australia’s subsequent shame in South Africa makes Stokes’ involvement in next year’s Ashes in England even more compelling, creating as it does — or at least should — a moral dilemma for the home crowd.

If Stokes participates, will the Barmy Army taunt and tease Steve Smith, David Warner and Cameron Bancroft for the serious but hardly criminal charge of rubbing a bit of sandpaper on a ball when their own superstar has been involved in a far more serious incident?

Of course they will. Even now you imagine the Barmys composing the lyrics to songs ridiculing the Australians’ clumsy ball tampering and others celebrating Stokes’ heroics.