Not a good look for Liam Smith

[The Pocket Rocket]

I am aware of the elements of affray and what needs to be established.

But again, the issue in this case was self-defence... This might assist you:

https://vhsfletchers.co.uk/ben-stokes-not-guilty/

Edit: after posting my response above, I just had a little search on the Internet and the secret barrister comments:

Would a charge of assault have resulted in a conviction?

We don’t know. The newspapers have largely assumed this as a given, but if the tenor of the defence to the affray was self-defence, then my educated guess would be that a similar defence would have been run in relation to any assault charge. And while we don’t know how and why the jury acquitted, there’s a reasonable inference that if they couldn’t be sure that the prosecution had disproved self-defence on the affray, there would be no difference to the verdict on an assault charge.

I am aware too, so need no such assistance, but thanks for the kind offer.

Won't go round in circles but the sticking point according to lawyers at the time was the part where a person of reasonable firmness would have been in fear for the personal safety.

The problem is, even if you think the answer is no in relation to defence of another, you still have the test I mentioned above. the jury can't fixate on whether force was 1) Necessary or 2) proportionate, that is only one step on the route.

It seems that the original reason that he was not charged more was because they wanted to charge the other two lads he banged out as well, and it is hard to do that when you are saying they have been victims of assault.

All very interesting

[liamlion]

If youre not acting in lawful self-defence of another then youre using unlawful violence and doing so in the circumstances of that case, whilst intoxicated in a street, late at night and the result is that you knock two people, who you didn't know, unconscious. I think its fair to assume that you are out of control. Logic would dictate that there would follow a finding that a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene would fear for their immediate safety.

Also, no person of reasonable firmness need actually be, or be likely to be, present at the scene.

I would be staggered if the jury found that Stokes used unlawful violence but acquitted him thereafter on the basis that a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene wouldn't fear for their immediate safety. But it is possible.

Alas, very interesting discussion. And I certainly didn't mean to patronise by adding any links or additional their party commentary.

[The Pocket Rocket]

If youre not acting in lawful self-defence of another then youre using unlawful violence and doing so in the circumstances of that case, whilst intoxicated in a street, late at night and the result is that you knock two people, who you didn't know, unconscious. I think its fair to assume that you are out of control. Logic would dictate that there would follow a finding that a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene would fear for their immediate safety.

Also, no person of reasonable firmness need actually be, or be likely to be, present at the scene.

I would be staggered if the jury found that Stokes used unlawful violence but acquitted him thereafter on the basis that a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene wouldn't fear for their immediate safety. But it is possible.

Alas, very interesting discussion. And I certainly didn't mean to patronise by adding any links or additional their party commentary.

No worries mate, I genuinely found it an interesting discussion.

[liamlion]

If youre not acting in lawful self-defence of another then youre using unlawful violence and doing so in the circumstances of that case, whilst intoxicated in a street, late at night and the result is that you knock two people, who you didn't know, unconscious. I think its fair to assume that you are out of control. Logic would dictate that there would follow a finding that a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene would fear for their immediate safety.

Also, no person of reasonable firmness need actually be, or be likely to be, present at the scene.

I would be staggered if the jury found that Stokes used unlawful violence but acquitted him thereafter on the basis that a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene wouldn't fear for their immediate safety. But it is possible.

Alas, very interesting discussion. And I certainly didn't mean to patronise by adding any links or additional their party commentary.

No worries mate, I genuinely found it an interesting discussion.

Totally buddy, me too. I enjoyed it and it's good to get the grey matter going on a lazy afternoon good health pal.

[SeanBrennan]

Liam is buggered, cctv and the fella down and posing no threat. If convicted it’s custodial. Confused with the affray talk but not read all the thread. I went on trial for afrray 2003 it was a bunch of young gobshites acting like gobshites this appears very different.

[forcefraser]

What on earth is a person of "reasonable firmness"?

Sounds like terminology for rating a pair of bristols

[veriton]

What on earth is a person of "reasonable firmness"?

Sounds like terminology for rating a pair of bristols

So not a little old lady or someone with a weak chin, like Amir Khan.

[banjo]

I have always found
Liam as extremely pleasant and approachable.

Typical of certain posters ..

I imagine some serial killers were considered pleasant and approachable, it doesn't mean somebody isn't capable of being a twat.

Yes, I am sure Spud would be like 'that Ted Bundy gets a hard press, he was dead nice to me once'.

Of course we don't know the circumstances so I will reserve judgement on the case, but if Gandhi started pounding guys when they were already down (as it being reported) he would be in a lot of trouble.

But we should not rush to judgement

I imagine Fred West did some sterling construction work.

[The Pocket Rocket]

Liam is buggered, cctv and the fella down and posing no threat. If convicted it’s custodial. Confused with the affray talk but not read all the thread. I went on trial for afrray 2003 it was a bunch of young gobshites acting like gobshites this appears very different.

Was originally a comment about the Ben Stokes case and how a jury can find someone not guilty seemingly out of nowhere. I mentioned the Stokes case was different because the route to verdict was more favourable for him for affray.

But as they wanted to get everyone involved rather than just one side of the ruck, they went affray rather than assauly, ABH, or GBH.

As with this one, it is only Liam who is up on charges, so the law has made their mind up that HE is solely at fault.

There is the context

[The Pocket Rocket]

What on earth is a person of "reasonable firmness"?

Sounds like terminology for rating a pair of bristols

It is a person who is basically not a wimp, and would the person who isn't a wimp feel fear for their safety.

So in the case of this discussion about the Stokes case, it would be like a person walking past with their kebab. Would they go 'oh heavens, they are gonna hurt me next, ahhhhggggrrr' or think 'bunch of clowns', and walk off and use it as a story about the night out.

[The Pocket Rocket]

I imagine some serial killers were considered pleasant and approachable, it doesn't mean somebody isn't capable of being a twat.

Yes, I am sure Spud would be like 'that Ted Bundy gets a hard press, he was dead nice to me once'.

Of course we don't know the circumstances so I will reserve judgement on the case, but if Gandhi started pounding guys when they were already down (as it being reported) he would be in a lot of trouble.

But we should not rush to judgement

I imagine Fred West did some sterling construction work.

Peter Sutcliffe was a great lorry driver. never missed a shipment or a deadline

[SeanBrennan]

Liam is buggered, cctv and the fella down and posing no threat. If convicted it’s custodial. Confused with the affray talk but not read all the thread. I went on trial for afrray 2003 it was a bunch of young gobshites acting like gobshites this appears very different.

Was originally a comment about the Ben Stokes case and how a jury can find someone not guilty seemingly out of nowhere. I mentioned the Stokes case was different because the route to verdict was more favourable for him for affray.

But as they wanted to get everyone involved rather than just one side of the ruck, they went affray rather than assauly, ABH, or GBH.

As with this one, it is only Liam who is up on charges, so the law has made their mind up that HE is solely at fault.

There is the context

Thank you