Some questions then:
Is it common for the prosecution to change the charges, and does that often occur as late as the start of the trial?
What was the reason the judge rejected their attempt to amend the charges?
Ben Stokes
More on the failed prosecution attempt to change the charges:
'The decision to initially prosecute Stokes with one charge of affray was made by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), following the involvement of Treasury Counsel based in London.
Treasury Counsel are appointed by the Attorney General to advise on and conduct important and complex cases on behalf of the CPS.
...
Judge Peter Blair QC, the Recorder of Bristol, pointed out that Treasury Counsel had been instructed to advise on the case ...
"She didn't attend the plea and trial preparation hearing, she sent someone else from her chambers," he told the court.
The judge pointed out that the charge at the plea and trial preparation hearing had been affray, with assault occasioning actual bodily harm not mentioned.
A lengthy case summary, detailing the case against all three defendants, was drafted by Treasury Counsel in advance of that hearing, the court was told.
He asked Nicholas Corsellis, prosecuting, whether it was an insult to the local bar that an affray case had been dealt with by Treasury Counsel and those in London.
Mr Corsellis replied: "The presentation of this case is not in any way to be taken as any sort of criticism of the local bar."
...
... Judge Blair ruled that the two charges could not be added to the indictment.
He said it was "absolutely clear" that Treasury Counsel had not considered it was appropriate for Stokes to be charged with actual bodily harm.
"This is a very late application," the judge said.
"In my view, it is not necessary for the indictment to be amended and I reject the application." '
https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/cricket/ ... d-13082338
[Comment: I guess that answers some of the questions. If it was a bad choice of charges, it seems Treasury Counsel are at fault, but the prosecutors should have tried to amend them earlier. It sounds a bit odd to me for the judge to ask the prosecutor the question about whether it was "an insult to the local bar". All rather strange...]
'The decision to initially prosecute Stokes with one charge of affray was made by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), following the involvement of Treasury Counsel based in London.
Treasury Counsel are appointed by the Attorney General to advise on and conduct important and complex cases on behalf of the CPS.
...
Judge Peter Blair QC, the Recorder of Bristol, pointed out that Treasury Counsel had been instructed to advise on the case ...
"She didn't attend the plea and trial preparation hearing, she sent someone else from her chambers," he told the court.
The judge pointed out that the charge at the plea and trial preparation hearing had been affray, with assault occasioning actual bodily harm not mentioned.
A lengthy case summary, detailing the case against all three defendants, was drafted by Treasury Counsel in advance of that hearing, the court was told.
He asked Nicholas Corsellis, prosecuting, whether it was an insult to the local bar that an affray case had been dealt with by Treasury Counsel and those in London.
Mr Corsellis replied: "The presentation of this case is not in any way to be taken as any sort of criticism of the local bar."
...
... Judge Blair ruled that the two charges could not be added to the indictment.
He said it was "absolutely clear" that Treasury Counsel had not considered it was appropriate for Stokes to be charged with actual bodily harm.
"This is a very late application," the judge said.
"In my view, it is not necessary for the indictment to be amended and I reject the application." '
https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/cricket/ ... d-13082338
[Comment: I guess that answers some of the questions. If it was a bad choice of charges, it seems Treasury Counsel are at fault, but the prosecutors should have tried to amend them earlier. It sounds a bit odd to me for the judge to ask the prosecutor the question about whether it was "an insult to the local bar". All rather strange...]
http://www.espncricinfo.com/series/1801 ... n-eng-2018
2/44 from 11 overs, including Kohli's wicket.
2/44 from 11 overs, including Kohli's wicket.
Corresponding page for 4th Test:
http://www.espncricinfo.com/series/1801 ... n-eng-2018
[Confirms post above ( http://magpies.net/nick/bb/viewtopic.ph ... 48#1863748 ) refers to 4th Test.]
BAS's figures in 3rd Test: 10, 2/68, 62.
Session 1, day 3, 5th Test, underway now.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/series/1801 ... n-eng-2018
[Confirms post above ( http://magpies.net/nick/bb/viewtopic.ph ... 48#1863748 ) refers to 4th Test.]
BAS's figures in 3rd Test: 10, 2/68, 62.
Session 1, day 3, 5th Test, underway now.
Day 5, session 2, 5th Test: India have a sniff. BS has 1 wicket, but was just hit out of the attack by Pant (three 4s in the over).
Update: Rashid gets the crucial breakthroughs and England win. BS does not bowl again, ending with 1/60 (13) in the 2nd innings, to go with 2/56 (16) in the 1st innings.
Update: Rashid gets the crucial breakthroughs and England win. BS does not bowl again, ending with 1/60 (13) in the 2nd innings, to go with 2/56 (16) in the 1st innings.
Ben Stokes and Alex Hales charged with bringing game into disrepute
https://www.bbc.com/sport/cricket/45561380
'The independent Cricket Discipline Commission (CDC) hearing will be held on 5 and 7 December. ...
The CDC hearing will be held in private by a three-man panel chaired by former Derbyshire cricketer Tim O'Gorman. ...
Stokes and limited-overs batsman Hales have been charged with two counts of breaching an ECB directive which states:
"No-one may conduct themself in a manner or do any act or omission at any time which may be prejudicial to the interests of cricket, or which may bring the ECB, the game of cricket or any cricketer or group of cricketers into disrepute." '
[cricinfo says the other panel members are Chris Tickle, a former employment tribunal judge, and Mike Smith, and the CDC can impose a penalty of an unlimited fine or suspension and termination of registration.]
https://www.bbc.com/sport/cricket/45561380
'The independent Cricket Discipline Commission (CDC) hearing will be held on 5 and 7 December. ...
The CDC hearing will be held in private by a three-man panel chaired by former Derbyshire cricketer Tim O'Gorman. ...
Stokes and limited-overs batsman Hales have been charged with two counts of breaching an ECB directive which states:
"No-one may conduct themself in a manner or do any act or omission at any time which may be prejudicial to the interests of cricket, or which may bring the ECB, the game of cricket or any cricketer or group of cricketers into disrepute." '
[cricinfo says the other panel members are Chris Tickle, a former employment tribunal judge, and Mike Smith, and the CDC can impose a penalty of an unlimited fine or suspension and termination of registration.]