Friday offtopic - Ched Evans

bendertherobot

CookeeeMonster wrote:

You need to read up on the case, the judge made some shocking decisions.

We are officially back in the 80's....heading towards the 50's.

Thank f**k I don't have any daughters.

This case or the previous one? Which decisions in this case involving sections 41-43 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, given the comments of the Court of Appeal in allowing the fresh witness evidence in the first place do you think are shocking in a legal sense? It is a minefield, and it's also very rare. But it's not untested. Loads of cases here:
http://westerncircuit.co.uk/data/docume ... t-PMQC.pdf

tangled_metal

A well known footie agent was.interviewed on R4 tonight. He was ranting on the about Ched should get compensation. He said Ched should get Oldham to sign a piece of paper saying they'd have taken him on for 5 years at whatever the weekly rate so he gets more money. Legal expert said there is a system but it pays little. Suing for more is possible but the expert said that is hard with rape since it's difficult to prove the prosecution did anything wrong. Plus he's.in.a very lucky place in that he's got a home, job, money and a good standard of living. Most jailed then cleared don't have that,

BTW I am certain I'll never.support any team he plays for. Mostly because I cannot stand.football and find it a dull game played by too many overpaid and morally questionable young men. It's not just morally or ethically questionable in their private life/drunken nights out, it's also the way some play. I don't like diving, feigning injury, etc. The world cup.star who.had.a ball kicked at his leg, IIRC, but he fell to the.ground grabbing.his head as if he'd had a hard kick to the head. Or the cases of a top player dancing around the opponents only one to take one too many on, as a result the ball running away so be dives like the last defender had tripped. I'm sure anyone with more interest can remember more cases.

ilovegrace

CookeeeMonster wrote:

You need to read up on the case, the judge made some shocking decisions.

We are officially back in the 80's....heading towards the 50's.

Thank f**k I don't have any daughters.

I have daughters and i would be truly ashamed if they behaved in the way this girl has done .

CiB

CookeeeMonster wrote:

You need to read up on the case, the judge made some shocking decisions.

We are officially back in the 80's....heading towards the 50's.

Thank f**k I don't have any daughters.

R4 on PM tonight made a decent job of summarising why the claimant's past history was directly relevant in this case. It effectively gave weight to Evans' claim that the girl's action and words gave him reasonable belief of consent, based on something that the prosecution had claimed she hadn't / would never do, yet two other men were able to testify in effect that she did and on one occasion only days after the events in the Rhyl hotel.

It's not a retrograde step to allow evidence that supports the defence. It would be if previosu history was used to discredit the claimant's character, but in this legitimate application of the law as it stands and has done for some time, it's far from 'shocking'.

https://thesecretbarrister.com/2016/10/ ... vans-case/

Point 6 covers this in more detail and with greater expertise than most people on here could.

The Rookie

CiB wrote:

R4 on PM tonight made a decent job of summarising why the claimant's past history was directly relevant in this case. It effectively gave weight to Evans' claim that the girl's action and words gave him reasonable belief of consent, based on something that the prosecution had claimed she hadn't / would never do, yet two other men were able to testify in effect that she did and on one occasion only days after the events in the Rhyl hotel.

I agree totally, this wasn't a case of character assassinating a purported victim over what she wore/how she looked or her previous sexual history, this was about witness testimony that supported the defence case of a reasonably held belief that consent was being given (and could be given) that the first jury never got to hear and only had the defendants (2 of them) assertion that she did/said these things and the girls that although she couldn't remember stated she wouldn't have - the Jury didn't appear to believe the defendants, those witnesses debunked her claim that she would never have acted that way. To not allow that evidence would be a miscarriage of justice whatever the verdict ended up as.

Do I like Evans as a person, no, do I like football(ers), no, do I believe the first conviction was unsound based on the new evidence and there should be a retrial, yes, was he guilty beyond reasonable doubt - not in my opinion.

Ben6899

This sums it up pretty well, for me. Except the bit about disliking footballers - that's a bit of a generalisation.

The Rookie

You're right, I meant a certain type of footballer, a category Mr Evans falls (or at least at that time fell) into.

surrey_commuter

what about the £50k reward? is there not a danger that the new witnesses could have been coached so as to "earn" their money? this is a genuine question.

ilovegrace

Surrey Commuter wrote:

what about the £50k reward? is there not a danger that the new witnesses could have been coached so as to "earn" their money? this is a genuine question.

Would you lie on oath in court for £50,000.
Not me.
regards
ILG

surrey_commuter

ilovegrace wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

what about the £50k reward? is there not a danger that the new witnesses could have been coached so as to "earn" their money? this is a genuine question.

Would you lie on oath in court for £50,000.
Not me.
regards
ILG

I imagine in the welsh boonies it would be very possible to find a candidate (or two)

lostboysaint

Have any of you actually read what the evidence was that the new witnesses brought? I suspect the prosecution team would have had no problem with identifying any problem with their validity given the nature of what the evidence they were bringing! No danger of "coaching" anyone or lying.

chris_bass

ilovegrace wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

what about the £50k reward? is there not a danger that the new witnesses could have been coached so as to "earn" their money? this is a genuine question.

Would you lie on oath in court for £50,000.
Not me.
regards
ILG

i'd be willing to bet a large number of people would be.

The Rookie

The issue isn't whether people may be inspired to lie for £50K but whether the two witnesses in question did or not, the evidence was put before the Jury who made up their mind.

Its easy to criticise someone for offering the reward, on the other hand if you look at it from the other side and were convinced an innocent person had been jailed for a crime they did not commit then you would probably resort to anything to get the truth.

Is it that different to offering a reward to help catch the perpetrators of a crime?

The Rookie

CookeeeMonster wrote:

You need to read up on the case, the judge made some shocking decisions.

We are officially back in the 80's....heading towards the 50's.

Thank f**k I don't have any daughters.

Shame you didn't read up on the case before making such a stupid and ill informed comment really!