Ched Evans - Case goes to appeal

Here we go again, addressing ignorance or lies.......

It's very unlikely that she was "virtually comatose" since the cctv clearly shows she was walking perfectly stably and unaided some 10 minutes beforehand. She had stopped drinking about 90 minutes earlier and had started eating (pizza). There was no evidence of any further drinking / drugs when in the room, so if anything she would have been sobering up even more.

 

It's nothing to do with gossip. As I say the media in this country is tightly controlled as to what they can and cannot report between the point of someone being charged with a criminal offence and the outcome of the trial. Much more so than they tend to be in some other countries. It is in the interests of justice that people see how the courts work - both to convict people and acquit them. The only way confidence is built in the justice system is seeing it work. It's also important for people in society to understand that being charged with something doesn't mean you're guilty. That's only going to happen if they see it play out. It also encourages the police, the CPS and the others involved in investigating and prosecuting people to be on the top of their game if they know every step of the trial is open to public scrutiny. Some big reforms have come back because of trials collapsing very publicly. And finally, there's something especially sinister about courts which sit in secret and decide people's guilt or innocence and whether they keep their liberty or not. No matter what you report after the event you will never get rid of the suspicion that bits have been conveniently missed out.

Essentially what you're suggesting panders to the noisy minority - the thugs, the morons, the mentally challenged - who don't understand how things work and want to act as judge/jury/executioner themselves. There are extreme examples in everything in life. Doesn't mean we should change hundreds of years of doing things because of them and the advent of social media.

Protected from what? Even the guilty man is protected ffs. There's nothing in law stopping Ched Evans being a professional footballer, signing for a new club, reporting hate mail to the police and carrying on his life. As for what would have happened if he was acquitted - what happened to Titus Bramble? Tell me about the hate campaign against him. He's still working in football.

Bare in mind that guilt and innocence aren't black and white for most crimes. A jury has to choose one or the other of course but plenty of cases fall into a grey area where a jury go with gut instinct. The public aren't stupid, they see that and make up their minds accordingly. Sometimes a person may not be guilty 'beyond reasonable doubt' but it's right that the public hear what happened, what they don't deny doing and how close they sailed to being banged up.

 

From what I read at the time, both Evans and McDonald readily complied with the initial police investigations and were both crystal clear that she had verbally consented and was actively involved in the encounter. She was not comatose (per their testimony).

The girl said she couldn't remember anything and suspected she had been drugged when first talking to the police (she hadn't). She could remember exactly what she had drunk and claimed she was "tipsy but not out of control" (a direct quote that I looked up to get the exact verbiage correct).

Bearing in mind neither side denied the encounter took place it came down to he said she said. I have zero sympathy for rapists (a close family member of mine was raped and her attacker was never brought to justice, so I know firsthand how that feels), but convicting someone on the basis of the fact that the person they went to bed with couldn't remember it is not something I am personally comfortable with.

If we become a society where you need to prove consent or be convicted of rape, it doesn't take much imagination to see that things could get very messy very fast.

As said earlier, I don't know that I have the full picture, but all I can do is form an opinion based on what I know.

 

I disagree with everything you've said on this but OK, I'll try another angle

What right should the public have to know who is accused of anything before it comes to trial? ... If you ask me it's a disaster, particularly when it comes to celebrities because their fame and fortune just brings out the worst in others. If people want to jump on the bandwagon then fine but it should be after a conviction not alongside a trial.

 

Don't let a couple of years of social media based cyber-thugs and 70s tv stars getting locked up influence how you view a 500 year old legal system.

The public have a right to know because it can lead to further evidence coming to light (for both sides) and it acts as a deterrent against unnecessary persecution by the state. Ultimately though it's a balancing act and the legal system has checks and balances in place to try and filter out some of those hangers on you describe.

 

Can't we just dismantle Twitter? Horrific creation.

 

While the concept of behind-closed-doors trials to protect the wrongfully accused seems potentially sensible on first consideration, the potential for long term abuse should terrify anyone.

Nations which engaged in secret prosecutions do not have established track records of fair trials.

Unfortunately the rabid rent-a-mob type on Twitter are a necessary evil. Better that than to have secret police forces and people just disappearing. Businesses just need to grow a backbone and ignore them.

Know what would have happened if Sheffield United had taken Evans back on after his release?

Nothing. The mob would have howled with rage for a few days and then moved on to their next target du jour. The vast majority of those engaged in the Evans furore would never go to a Sheffield United game anyway, so what's the risk?

 

The problem is that it's given the most extreme fraction of a percent a very vocal presence. Previously there were just ignored because they would be so scattered that they never gathered in numbers.

The internet has made it far too easy for fringe elements to co-ordinate and gain the illusion of credibility, unfortunately.

 

I'm not going into the detail too much again now, as I previously explained why it seemed unsafe to me months ago. This appeal doesn't surprise me as one v one testimony is always difficult, particularly when only one witness is sober, and the the other is drunk, with no other witness as to whether consent was given. My view hasn't changed a bit, regardless of what happens at the appeal.

But if justice "has to be seen to be done" how is it ok to allow one side to stay anonymous? If it is ok for one side to be anonymous surely then it is ok for the other side to stay anonymous. Rape is already treated as a special case, I wonder if that could be extended to the accused.

I agree that the verdict is often a judgement by a jury, and not black and white. That means that someone named and then found not guilty will still have that element of doubt hanging over him. People will think that maybe, just maybe, he was guilty after all.

But I really don't know the answers, but any one of us could have our lives ruined by a false accusation, by someone who doesn't even have to let her name known to the public.

 

the 500 year legal system did not offer anonimity to the accuser... I'm not saying that was right but it should be the same for both

And no the further 'evidence' only muddies the waters because added accusations prove nothing and should be dealt with on thir own merit.... There's absolutly nothing to stop others coming forward after a convicted felon's identity is made public nor anything to stop him facing more charges if further evidence of wrongdoing is uncovered.

The rise of social media has just exacerbated an existing injustice.

 

I don't have the same legal knowledge as you (or any for that matter) but couldn't a judge at the end of a trial rule whether details of the case can be made public, or not, once all the evidence has been heard and a verdict reached? Surely better than letting the media and the baying twitterati decide who is innocent or guilty and fit to live a normal life.

 

UEA, the "rape" victim may also be a politician or public figure whose behaviour would make her unsuitable for office. Should that be kept quiet from the public as well, even if the accused is found guilty, let alone if found not guilty.

I don't see why the anonymity inbalance makes sense, other than to encourage victims to come forward (an argument I have a lot of sympathy for.

 

I didn't think that consent was the issue, but that the victim was allegedly too intoxicated to consent. My understanding of it is, even if she did consent, he shouldn't have accepted it as she wasn't of a state of mind to give it. This is where it becomes complicated as the other guy had sex with her but apparently she consented to that much earlier in the evening when she was not as intoxicated.

The point for further discussion in my opinion is if Ched Evans was expected to decide whether she was off a state of mind to consent, and if so then why is the other man not being out in the spotlight as well? I appreciate it's all victim-led and I support this, but the court has effectively said that CE should have not accepted any form of consent even if she did in fact give it. Now, if she consented to the other man too, it should be a matter for the court to decide whether she was in a position to consent or not. Even if she claims the first consent was genuine, and the second consent wasn't, it's not reasonable for a person to ascertain the differences in how this consent was given.

I doubt an appeal will rely on technicalities, especially given case law generally covers most issues anyway. If all they have to give is a technicality I would be very surprised. I expect the court will hear new evidence.

 

You're only looking at one part of it - the extra victims who seem to come to light in cases of high profile celebrity sexual offence suspects. I'm talking about evidence. You know, witnesses, people who can provide alibis etc. If a case proceeds to trial without any publicity - which is what hornmeister was talking about and I was debating - then how would such people know to come forward? There are lots of people out there who will wait until they know a case is actually proceeding to court before they will stand up and be counted. Not everyone is driven by a civic spirit that sees them come forward straight away.

Judges already have wide-ranging powers to hold hearings in private, ban the press from reporting on cases, make witnesses anonymous etc. But the presumption is that justice is open in this country and they can't just do it on a whim. It's extremely rare.

I think this thread moved on somewhere in the middle and I missed the shift. I was really debating and responding to meister's point about all trials not being publicised between point of charge and their conclusion but it appears to have moved on to talk just about anonymity in sexual offence cases (which of course is more on topic).

My opinion is that the only reason the anonymity of sexual offence victims is justified is around giving them confidence to come forward. Rape in particular has a very low conviction rate, significantly below that of other offences, so it's probably deserving of being a special case. My understanding is it simply serves as a reporting restriction - if you attend the trial you can still see who the victim is, hear their name and their testimony and draw your own conclusions. The defendant certainly knows who they are. No one is disadvantaged in the eyes of the law.

So what we're left with is the social impact. The finger pointing, name calling and naming and shaming, in real life or online. I would like to think the public are pretty shrewd and will sort the wheat from the chaff. In a well-publicised case it often becomes immediately clear how strong the evidence is, what the circumstances of the alleged rape are and how it came to be reported. You're not likely to see a witch hunt for cases in which the public have understanding. The problem Ched Evans has is I don't think the public can relate to him or the situation he ended up in that night. Clayton McDonald has found the same even though he was found not guilty.

It's a fine line to tread of course and I'm yet to be convinced that 'victim led justice', as it's coined, is a great concept. Justice should be about finding the truth, not overtly supporting one side over another, but its all come about for a reason.

 

WEAK argument as we have a Police force that we pay to investigate crime. They ask witnesses for crimes to come forward all the time without naming suspects from major acts to even the most trivial of crimes - all except for sex cases which let's face it, are probably the most damaging to anyone's career ... It does not make any sense.

Not only that but once a name has been "leaked" it somehow gives the press a right to publish without recourse. Incredibly we now have a system where guilt is pretty much attached even before charges are laid. Surely that has to change?

 

Your understanding of both the law and the facts of this case are wrong. The difference between the two defendants hinges on their "reasonable belief of consent", a two part legal test. The first element is a subjective test, relating to the defendant's personal belief of whether the person consented. Both men stated that they believed the victim consented to sex. The second part is an objective test and one for the jury to decide - is this belief reasonable?

This is where the circumstances of the case come into play. The jury considered that McDonald has a reasonable belief that consent had been given - he had met her in a kebab shop, spent some time with her, shared a cab with her and she had voluntarily walked into the hotel and room with him. Therefore even though she was considered too drunk to have the capacity to consent, this defence succeeded.

The difference with Evans is that he had spent no time with her before having sex with her, had entered a room with a key card that he admitted lying to the receptionist to obtain, and claimed that he was going to the hotel just to have a look at the girl his mate had pulled - even on his own evidence he was not going there on the promise of sex. The jury considered that in these circumstances, he could not reasonably believe that the victim had consented to him starting to have sex with her seconds after entering the hotel room.

The circumstances for the two men are different, hence why the verdicts differ. On the facts of the first trial, both verdicts seem reasonable to me.

For information, you also can't consent to sex much earlier in the evening when at a different level of intoxication, the consent is only relevant at the time the act occurs.

 

You're conflating different issues again.

I don't agree with naming suspects before they are charged and, as I understand it, official guidance says they shouldn't be. The media are against that idea and continually seek to corrupt police officers, staff and others in order to get the information. The courts have given their seal of approval to such bribery - at least on the part of the journos - so there's not much that can be done to prevent it.

 

If I'd been on the jury I would have reached a different conclusion ... All testimony suggests she was not comatose but a very active partner in all of this and her own "memory loss" really should not count against Evans. I know from experience that you don't need to be legless for events to become muddled later.

It's also worth noting she did not go to the police to make a complaint but to report her missing mobile and there must have been a considerable amount of leading questions asked of her for the police to reach the conclusion that she may have been raped. She also has a reputation which although relevant, due to our legal system would no doubt have been inadmissable.

 

Not confusing but just throwing it in the ring, it's relevant enough.

There's lots can be done but it all starts by prosecuting the media. Unfortunately that would be a political disaster for any party but especially the Tories as it would risk losing Murdoch's backing ....

What a fcking sh!t world we live in when people's lives and livelyhoods hinge on the whim of that ogre.

 

UEA I see where you're coming from but for me your two basic arguments for publicising on-going trials are:

To keep the legal system in check.
To advertise for more accusers to come forward, who might not otherwise have done so.

Whilst I agree these are both important factors which may be improved with publicity, publicising trials in my opinion is not the correct way to solve these problems. It might work but in my opinion the legal system should be kept in check by its robust design and openness post trial completion.
If accusers are reluctant to come forward then there is an issue with the way victims of certain crimes feel they are treated. I note in some countries it is an offence, not to report an offence this might be taking it too far.

I still believe it is the right of everyone to not be publicly accused of something, but I do agree that once convicted there should not be any restrictions.

 

The Bill Cosby situation provides a perfect example of why you want to make the public aware of an ongoing investigation. The number of women who stepped forward after it first started to unravel has been nothing short of incredible. They wouldn't have come forward if the first allegations hadn't have been made public.

 

As far as I know they provided no evidence for the original trial and I can't see why if he was convicted for one that they wouldn't emerge in equal numbers once it was known.

 

It is in the interests of justice to avoid continually having to return to court to try new matters if they could have been done earlier. Saves the public purse money as well.

 

It's laughable to put that before justice. Whatever happened to "a fair trial"?

 

What's unfair about it? It's surely better for the defendant to get all of the allegations out of the way in one go rather than processing to and from court for the next few years?

 

You might not get a conviction without the other victims stepping forward. That's the entire point.

The issue here isn't with the legal system, it's with the mob mentality fostered by social media that prevents convicted offenders from getting on with their lives.

 

Nope, not in this country anyway. Here you are innocent until found guilty and until that happens why would anyone want their name splashed all over the media?

 

Why not? their testimony won't count if they are not witnesses.

 

Of course it does. "He did similar to me 5 years ago" is excellent background information to a current case.

 

Er, because fewer people coming forward means the prosecution has less material to make their case with, perhaps?

 

Now wait there ... we all know that when a major celebrity gets named a huge chunk of hangers on start looking for a pay day and false accusations get made, it really wouldn't do to have a star witness later be proved a fake.

It's actually a big argument to why they should not be named until after conviction.

 

I know that's one of the big arguments. Not sure it's any more valid though despite the fame of those who put it forward.

Stop worrying about 'major celebrity' types. Seriously. They probably represent a statistically irrelevant number of criminal cases every year. The law is there for everyone - not just ageing unfunny types with wandering hands in the 1970s.

The principle translates well into domestic abuse cases. Often a victim will not come forward but then they may see their ex's name in the paper charged with assaulting his latest partner and decide now is the time to speak out.

 

Far easier and much more likely to reach her if they send a policeman around to her house don't you think?

 

Nope, not really. Most don't call the police at the time of something happening so how would you propose to 'send a policeman' to her?