Ched Evans update

[Blingguy]

It seems the ccrc have finally awoken with a sense of common sense and have referred the matter to the court of appeal. Only a matter of time until acquittal.

We'll see the reaction to all those people who gave him a hard time...

Watch this space

What are your views on it

[joe_3178]

I think for Ched one of the problems is the idea of 'targetting'. For example: If 2 people met in a club, became intimate and travelled back to a hotel etc there is clearly a path to the events which suggests the events at the hotel should be consensual, or at least in part consensual. The problem for Ched I think is the idea that he approached this woman whilst drunk in the early hours without any prior encounter (I think that was the situation as far as im aware). This could clearly be percieved as targetting an incapable person simply for the purposes of personal sex/gratification. For this reason I can see why he was convicted

However… I noted that the woman concerned reported that she could not remember anything of the evening. and no matter how many times I think about this, I cannot help but feel that this is not a good enough reason to assume that the events were not consensual. To be clear I don't think anyone should be having sex with another person (they don't really know) if they seem drunk, but as other people have noted -and I think it's correct- one night encounters like this happen all time. Maybe those involved in such drunken encounters 'regret' the incident, but drunken sex with strangers cant result in the male being assumed guilty, the chances of innocent people being convicted here is clearly very high.

This leads to the obvious question of how can the police/cps/courts possibly convict rapists if 'someone not remembering' is considered not good enough reason to convict. This is where I feel a persons character and history needs to come into play. Has the female engaged in other similar risky sexual encounters? Has the accused been of good character in the past? and so on.

I don't know enough about the case to be able to make a personal opinion on whether he was guilty or not but I do feel that we need to take a step back and examine the character of those involved very carefully to give more insight into their motivations. Hopefully, the appeal will allow a definitive answer now based on whatever new evidence is available

[Blingguy]

I think for Ched one of the problems is the idea of 'targetting'. For example: If 2 people met in a club, became intimate and travelled back to a hotel etc there is clearly a path to the events which suggests the events at the hotel should be consensual, or at least in part consensual. The problem for Ched I think is the idea that he approached this woman whilst drunk in the early hours without any prior encounter (I think that was the situation as far as im aware). This could clearly be percieved as targetting an incapable person simply for the purposes of personal sex/gratification. For this reason I can see why he was convicted

However… I noted that the woman concerned reported that she could not remember anything of the evening. and no matter how many times I think about this, I cannot help but feel that this is not a good enough reason to assume that the events were not consensual. To be clear I don't think anyone should be having sex with another person (they don't really know) if they seem drunk, but as other people have noted -and I think it's correct- one night encounters like this happen all time. Maybe those involved in such drunken encounters 'regret' the incident, but drunken sex with strangers cant result in the male being assumed guilty, the chances of innocent people being convicted here is clearly very high.

This leads to the obvious question of how can the police/cps/courts possibly convict rapists if 'someone not remembering' is considered not good enough reason to convict. This is where I feel a persons character and history needs to come into play. Has the female engaged in other similar risky sexual encounters? Has the accused been of good character in the past? and so on.

I don't know enough about the case to be able to make a personal opinion on whether he was guilty or not but I do feel that we need to take a step back and examine the character of those involved very carefully to give more insight into their motivations. Hopefully, the appeal will allow a definitive answer now based on whatever new evidence is available

I think you're response riddled with words such as character and targeting have a moral connotation.

The criminal courts are not trying defendants on the basis of morals but because of allegedly contravening statutes in place.

The other co-defendant in this case was acquitted.

The prosecution case was that was the complainant too drunk to consent?

If she wasn't with the first guy and the second guy happened straight after, then ched Evans should be acquitted.

Of course, she could have not consented to sex with ched Evans but consent with first defendant.

But she doesn't remember!!

Combined with the fact of cctv evidence and her tweets, her motives of complaining are plain to see. She's a gold digger (I'll add allegedly so not to get sued, even though she has anonymity for life but I digress)

Judge Mary Jane Mowat (and google it) said last year how can a jury convict when the complainant says I was off my head but I wouldn't have consented to sex even though I don't remember.

The criminal burden of proof is very high

There is too much doubt

He should rightly be acquitted.

[Rights Fighter]

The criminal burden of proof is 51% chance of conviction. That is not "high".

I've tried to help people with appeals against conviction (and sometimes we've won) where, on reading the trial file, I have had to wonder whether the jury was present or even awake during the defence evidence.

It is not as cut and dried as that - at all.

We have no idea what the fresh evidence is. It may not be anything to do with the alleged rape and could relate to some sort of abuse of process, for all we know. Hopefully time will allow us all to know what the evidence is and how it affects the conviction.

This is nothing to do with guilt or innocence, truth or lies. It is about whether the conviction is "safe".

Many guilty people have convictions quashed due to a misdirection by the judge, or an abuse of process.

Innocent people remain in prison despite it being clear that there is serious doubt, simply because the conviction is "safe".

[Blingguy]

The criminal burden of proof is 51% chance of conviction. That is not "high".

I've tried to help people with appeals against conviction (and sometimes we've won) where, on reading the trial file, I have had to wonder whether the jury was present or even awake during the defence evidence.

It is not as cut and dried as that - at all.

We have no idea what the fresh evidence is. It may not be anything to do with the alleged rape and could relate to some sort of abuse of process, for all we know. Hopefully time will allow us all to know what the evidence is and how it affects the conviction.

This is nothing to do with guilt or innocence, truth or lies. It is about whether the conviction is "safe".

Many guilty people have convictions quashed due to a misdirection by the judge, or an abuse of process.

Innocent people remain in prison despite it being clear that there is serious doubt, simply because the conviction is "safe".

The criminal burden of proof is beyond reasonable doubt. The jury have to be sure of the defendants guilt.

The code for the crown prosecution service which I think you are getting confused with relates to the charging decision - all they require is a realistic prospect of conviction. The 51% you are referring to in this case.

The CCRC has a specific role. Maybe you should look this up.

There are many technicalities referring to a conviction and whether it is safe or not. But in this case it is the fact that the fresh evidence if you go to chedevans.com and maybe look at what his side of the story is will hopefully shed some light on it.

I don't want to get all lawyer on you but you need to see that this case is rather unique.

[Rights Fighter]

How long have you been preparing pre trial work and appeals against conviction?

[joe_3178]

I don't want to get all lawyer on you but you need to see that this case is rather unique.

We are here to discuss and express our points of view so please be respectful of that. Your original post said 'what are your views on it?' so why not listen rather than speak down to people. If you are not up for discussion please dont waste our time

[Rights Fighter]

Thanks Joe.

I won't bother arguing with him as he's got quite a lot wrong already and doesn't want to learn. Plus I'd like to know how many trials & appeals he has been involved with, where the jury / appeal court came to the correct decision with regards to justice, as opposed to "safety" of the conviction.

I've had three applications to the CCRC referred back to the Court of Appeal. As they only refer back 1.6% of applications, that is not really bad going at all. I know a little about the CCRC!

With regards to Ched Evans, none of us can know the outcome any more than we know what the fresh evidence is. Time will tell. If the evidence proves beyond all doubt that the complainant was lying hopefully action will be taken against her.

However, as I said before, the fresh evidence could relate to a potential abuse of process, which might not be a deciding factor in guilt or innocence, but in whether the conviction is "unsafe". There is a world of difference.

I have no idea whether he is guilty or not. I've only read what was in the media and on the support website for Mr Evans. I wasn't there so cannot come to any particular view on that.

[joe_3178]

Yes agreed, it's impossible to come to any conclusion without being there at a trial/appeal

[Blingguy]

How long have you been preparing pre trial work and appeals against conviction?

I'm a QC and have advocated in the Supreme Court. Does that answer your question and add weight? I have a doctorate in law. Should you want to further question my credentials, PM me

[Blingguy]

How long have you been preparing pre trial work and appeals against conviction?

P.S you sound like a paralegal

[Rights Fighter]

Then what are you doing on here?! Can't see that myself given the way you write and the lack of real knowledge.

A QC worth his or her salt would never write like this:

On "Will it never end thread"

Sounds like the nightmare will end

ON Ched Evans update
It seems the ccrc have finally awoken with a sense of common sense and have referred the matter to the court of appeal. Only a matter of time until acquittal.

On reinterview thoughts:
They are being lazy

I wouldn't read too much into it but it's nothing positive that's for sure.

The police are stupid. Always remember that. They are incompetent time wasters

On Help me, I need some advice
Don't panic. Sounds dodgy. Sounds like a weak case

No I'm not a paralegal.

This is not the place to debate qualifications or lack of. This is a support group so maybe you could try doing some supporting and check your advice before posting. Just a thought.

[Blingguy]

Then what are you doing on here?! Can't see that myself given the way you write and the lack of real knowledge.

A QC worth his or her salt would never write like this:












No I'm not a paralegal.

This is not the place to debate qualifications or lack of. This is a support group so maybe you could try doing some supporting and check your advice before posting. Just a thought.

Maybe you should more of my posts and the reaction to it.

So it's a support group as well as an advertising platform?

The firm you promote isn't arguably the best. It's arguably mediocre

My writing has been published in many law reviews internationally, maybe you want to read some?

[Rights Fighter]

No thanks. I have an idea who are you are.

We are off-topic so let's get back to where we were.

[Tony1]

The criminal burden of proof is 51% chance of conviction. That is not "high".

I've tried to help people with appeals against conviction (and sometimes we've won) where, on reading the trial file, I have had to wonder whether the jury was present or even awake during the defence evidence.

It is not as cut and dried as that - at all.

We have no idea what the fresh evidence is. It may not be anything to do with the alleged rape and could relate to some sort of abuse of process, for all we know. Hopefully time will allow us all to know what the evidence is and how it affects the conviction.

This is nothing to do with guilt or innocence, truth or lies. It is about whether the conviction is "safe".

Many guilty people have convictions quashed due to a misdirection by the judge, or an abuse of process.

Innocent people remain in prison despite it being clear that there is serious doubt, simply because the conviction is "safe".

This post intrigues me - My understanding is that in a court of law the standard is 'beyond reasonable doubt' - Hard to quantify numerically.
I am not interested in who has the most glittering CV - just discussion of relevant topics.

The Evans case is a very interesting one - I struggle with the concept of convicting someone when the complainant 'cant remember'.
This seems to contradict the principle of 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

Evans behaviour was idiotic - criminal is another matter.

Tony