Ched Evans - Case goes to appeal

Interesting as this is though it doesn't appear to form part of Ched Evans' appeal. Of course some jurors will be tempted to break the rules but they're laid out very clearly to them at the start and most will abide by what they're asked to do.

 

I tried to explain the possible reasoning behind the different verdicts earlier in the thread, I'm not sure if you missed that post or perhaps I didn't explain it well enough. Here is the section of the Court of Appeal's reasoning for rejecting Evans' appeal:

"it was open to the jury to convict both defendants, to acquit both defendants, or to convict one and not the other defendant. That was the point of a joint trial in
which separate verdicts were to be returned. It was open to the jury to consider, as it seems to us, that even if the complainant did not, in fact, consent to sexual intercourse with either of the two men, that in the light of his part in what happened -- the meeting in the street and so on -- McDonald may reasonably have believed that the complainant had consented to sexual activity with him, and at the same time concluded that [Evans] knew perfectly well that she had not
consented to sexual activity with him... The circumstances in which each of the two men came to be involved in the sexual activity was quite different; so indeed were the circumstances in which they left her. These seem to us to be matters entirely open to the jury. There is no inconsistency."

If that doesn't clear it up for you, then I don't think there's anything else that can. I'm not offering an opinion on whether I think the verdicts are correct by the way, I'm simply explaining the law and how it is possible to have the different verdicts. The "common sense" that you wish the jury had applied is your interpretation of a limited part of the evidence.

You seem to think that the even though the jury sat through days of evidence and had the law explained to them by the judge they just didn't understand the case as well as you and have somehow erred with their verdict. The police also didn't know what they were doing and decided to embark on a malicious prosecution just for the hell of it, the trial judge didn't understand the law so he made mistakes in his summing up, then the Court of Appeal also misunderstood the law when rejecting the appeal. Is it not possible that perhaps all of the above people know a little bit more about the case and the relevant points of law than someone who's read a few newspaper reports?

As for the assertion that newspapers published opinion and embarked on a witch-hunt prior to the conclusion of the case, this is nonsense I'm afraid. At no point have any of his various defence teams (or his private investigators who spent 18 months investigating all aspects of the case) raised any concern about the press reporting at the time of the trial. If you can point them in the direction of some press coverage that could have prejudiced the trial I'm sure they'd be very interested as this would be one of the easiest grounds of appeal on which to have the verdict declared unsafe.

There was, however, an awful lot of comment after the trial and especially when he was released from prison and looking to get back into football. This coverage raises an interesting debate to be had about the treatment of criminals after they have served their time, perhaps you're confused about the timing of the articles you've read?

 

Where is a single shred of evidence to this? .... If she was sober enough to give or nuance consent to McDonald then unless she actually got drunker she was also sober enough to give or nuance consent to Evans. That evidence does not exist and therefore the jury had absolutely no right to reach the conclusion they did. It really does not matter how many times you say otherwise, Evans is no better a mind reader than his mate.

Just face facts ... She actively and willingly enjoyed sex with him and went to the Police station to enquire about her missing phone, not to report a rape.

 

"She...went to the police station to enquire about her missing phone, not to report a rape."

Right, just a casual lost property report. That's exactly what it was. The police love to turn those into major crime investigations.

I don't have a great have a great memory of this from the initial trial, the appeal judgement makes no reference to it and when I've tried searching for it online the only reference to a mobile phone in the case comes down to Evans' mates standing outside filming him. I'd appreciate a link please so I can read about it myself.

 

I can't be bothered to find the link, but I'm pretty sure Godfather is correct here. The lady complained of a lost mobile and confessed to no memory, and Evans/MacDonald effectively shopped themselves under interview. To be fair this strengthens her case in my opinion as it makes it far more likely she genuinely didn't have a clue what happened.

As for the police making a drama, we don't know what was said to them in this case. What we do know though, is the current leader of the CPS is determined to increase rape convictions (on the verge of being fanatical), so I imagine this puts pressure on the police. Unlikely this is relevant in this case but I think Alison Saunders is an extremely dangerous woman for our young male citizens.

 

if i ever need a defence lawyer, and knowledge of the law is no barrier to doing the job, then iḿ going with godfather! he is tenacious!

 

To clarify my last post Saunders says:

"We want police and prosecutors to make sure they ask in every case where consent is the issue - how did the suspect know the complainant was saying yes and doing so freely and knowingly"

So we have moved to guilty till you can prove yourself innocent.

 

I agree but then I would argue witnesses and supporting video of her enjoying herself show she wasn't just a scared victim lying back and thinking of England. Rape laws have changed and are much less black and white than in my youth but one thing I am certain of is that on the evidence shown, if Evans was guilty then McDonald could not have been innocent at the same time

 

True that. The CoA's reasoning relies on imagined evidence. Nowhere did McDonald state that the circumstances of his meeting the woman gave him the reasonable belief of consent. He said that once they got in the room she initiated the sex, which presumably the jury believed.

Any right-minded person should be appalled at the CoA because they in effect said that when a woman goes voluntarily to a hotel room, the man is entitled to take that as consent to sex. That must be wrong, both in common sense and, I would hope, in law.

 

Judges and Jury's sometimes make the wrong judgement. I know that 100%.

I think that when it all comes down to it, it doesn't matter how long the Judge has been in his job, and it doesn't matter how much information the jury studied that referred to what happened before the sex/rape or what happened after, what really matters is - was she too drunk to consent as they started to have sex?

The only person who really knows is Evans.

Yet we expect the Jury to know better than him, or be sure that he is lying.

If I have to do jury duty I hope it isn't a rape case in the same circumstances as i don't think I could ever be sure enough to ruin an innocent persons life, or to let a guilty person go free.

 

TBH you couldn't make a worse hash of it than this jury did. Twelve good men can also be twelve blithering idiots.

Personally I think there should be separate charges of first degree rape and of circumstantial rape where possible misunderstandings must be considered both in degree and sentencing.

 

Agreed completely, the logic is very concerning.

The other part I can't understand is how McDonald didn't get done helping his mate rape a girl. If she was drunk and incapable of giving consent then McDonald directly facilitated that: he told Evans to come over, he let him into the room and he stood by and watch him have at the girl. If we argue Evans raped her then I can't understand in what word McDonald's actions could be deemed acceptable behavior not worthy of prosecution.

 

I like mine better
post #86 ...

 

It's not that extreme but what it does do is place a positive duty on the man to be sure he has consent first. It was debated at length when it was introduced in 2003 so shouldn't be a massive revelation.

Unless you sat through the whole trial, including submissions by his legal team, you simply can't say the bit in bold.

And you've completely misunderstood the CoA judgement too. The voluntarily going to his hotel room bit was one piece of the jigsaw, a piece which when added to several others added up to consent. Or to be more precise added up to not 'not consent' as the jury are only looking for a victim who didn't consent. It doesn't operate on its own as a standalone principle.

 

That's a good point, a kind of piecemeal burden of proof ... except in reverse and Evans wasn't afforded the luxury.

The whole prosecution hinged on the fact she was unfit to consent but the jury did not reach the conclusion that she was for McDonald. However they did for Evans.

Think about it.

 

But women say that every rape is the same, regardless of how it happened. Perhaps, as a man I have no right to disagree, but I struggle to understand how a stranger jumping out down a dark alleyway and raping at knifepoint is no worse than what can happen when adults, who may know each other, get drunk and have sex and consent is not clear. A state of mind, in the absence of other concurrent evidence is impossible to prove. Both perpetrators get labelled equally as badly. Yet one is a pre meditated crime, and the other could be the result of a misjudgement whilst tipsy. It is hard for me to grasp.

But, we also have to try and ensure a rape victim has a good chance of seeing her perpetrator get found guilty. It is a horrendous balance.

 

Of course he was. Unfortunately though due to his own actions on the night his little jigsaw had a big hole in it. While McDonald could point to several normal things leading up to doing the deed everything Evans had to fall back on worked against him.

 

You are innocent until proved guilty.

I'll repeat the edit to my last post as the page has turned.

 

I have thought about it. It simply backs up what I've said in the last couple of posts. Likewise Steve Leo Beleck.

We're at risk of going around in circles now anyway if you won't move on from this point about the split decision. It's really not that troubling from a legal point of view. The fact Evans didn't appeal to the Supreme Court on that very issue speaks volumes. You're entitled to disagree with it of course but it won't change.

 

But the proper process for appealing against convictions and sentences after the Court of Appeal is to go to the CCRC, which he has done.

 

Unless of course it's an exceptional case of general public importance. Which if godfather et al are right this is. Can a jury split a case down the middle and convict one suspect but not the other on similar facts in a case such as this? The argument on here from some seems to be clearly not and the point I was making is, "Yes, they can" and the Supreme Court wouldn't entertain an appeal on that point because it's legally sound.

 

So the appeal has been heard in London over the past two days. Judgement likely to be revealed next month.

CPS have told the Court of Appeal they intend to hold a re-trial if his current conviction is quashed:

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/mar/23/ched-evans-appeal-sheffield-united-footballer-rape

 

Can you explain how the CPS can do that? Can the CPS now just go again (and ad infinitum) if it doesn't go their way. This attitude sounds like a witch hunt to save face, paid by taxpayer of course. Hypothetically if it is quashed and the CPS go for retrial and he is found not guilty does the boss of the CPS have any accountability?

 

The CPS can seek a retrial on the basis that they think that even including any new evidence that leads to the quashing of the first conviction, there is still a reasonable prospect of a conviction were the matter to be tried again.

For example, if the defence found a witness after the first trial who contradicted a key part of the victim's account, then the Court of Appeal might think that that witness really should have given evidence and been cross examined in court as it could have assisted the defence. They could therefore quash the conviction. The CPS then look at all the old evidence plus the new witness' evidence and work out whether they still think there is a realistic prospect of conviction. If they don't, they wouldn't seek a retrial. If they do then they probably will, contingent upon whether it is in the public interest.

As for any accountability at the CPS - it is not relevant if Evans is acquitted on a retrial as the CPS threshold for prosecuting is only a realistic prospect of conviction, rather than a certainty of conviction. If, however, the case collapsed on a retrial due to the weakness of the evidence, then there may be some fall out for the decision makers.

 

Good answer SLB. Not much I can add to that.

 

If it went to retrial, could it be possible for Evans to get a longer sentence than he was originally given and have to go back into jail?

 

Probably not, but we can dream.

 

Eh? ... I thought the general consensus was that she was a slag

 

Not sure this post is going to go down well Godfather...........

 

You seem a very messed up individual with a very warped view on women.

More victim blaming here following on from your revolting comments in the Adam Johnson thread.

 

You are surely kidding me? ... If you really find a girl going back to the hotel for sex with a guy she just met outside a chip shop as normal behaviour then maybe it is your view that is warped.

Real life is not some ridiculous Daily Mail utopia, it's time you grew up!



PS. Not once did I attach any blame to the girl in the AJ case.

 

She didn't go back to the hotel with Ched Evans. She went back with his team mate. He sneaked in later and committed the crime of which he was convicted.

 

You're either painfully ignorant or on the wind up.

Actually, it's probably both you weird little freak.

 

Sorry I didn't realise she was McDonald's long standing girlfriend, does it really make any difference which stranger she went to the hotel with?

The initial social media reaction named and spelled out the girl was a notorious bike in the area, no not from Sunderland fans but local lads. Quite frankly I believe them!

 

Explain you cocksucker?