Interesting jury verdict

[Casehardened]

Can't find any on-line confirmation as yet but the jury have returned an interesting verdict in this case:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-17772238

They found the defendant whom she had originally accompanied to his hotel not guilty but judged that the other defendant who entered the bedroom at a later stage in the proceedings (uninvited by the woman) was guilty.

I consider that this was for once a 'thinking' jury......discuss......

[RFLH]

it looks as if commonsense has been used, which makes a refreshing change.

[LS]

I really fail to see how the jury arrived at that decision. The woman was not in a position to consent, according to the Judge,

"As the jury have found, she was in no condition to have sexual intercourse. When you arrived at the hotel, you must have realised that."


So how was that accepted for one defendant but not the other?

Both the defendants are sleazebags who should both have been locked up, along with the voyeur brother who filmed it.

I think this is yet another example of a NON-thinking jury.

[Casehardened]

The woman was not in a position to consent, according to the Judge,

The jury elected not to agree with the judge, their prerogative of course, and decided that the person she hadn't given consent to was the second defendant who had entered the room later at the invitation of the first defendant (and I do agree with you that this isn't exactly the actions of a gentleman)

[LS]

I would think that that the convicted "gentleman" being in the same situation/circumstance as the acquitted one, would have a perfectly viable reason to now appeal the conviction.

[Casehardened]

I was half listening to the 10pm news from another room but I'm sure that I heard that an appeal was being considered.

[Rights Fighter]

I would think that that the convicted "gentleman" being in the same situation/circumstance as the acquitted one, would have a perfectly viable reason to now appeal the conviction.

I would be very surprised if this was not appealed - whether it works or not is another matter. I shall keep a sharp eye on this one!

[LS]

It does seem strange how two men can be in the same situation in the same case, yet only one gets convicted.
She was equally unable to consent to either of them, so whatever the verdict, it should have been the same for both of them.

[Rights Fighter]

In common sense terms (to the jury - not necessarily in reality) the guy who was found not guilty was the one who reported his concerns to the hotel receptionist that the complainant was not well. Hardly likely to draw attention to himself and his mate if he had just raped her.

I have an idea that the appeal would be grounded in 'perverse verdicts'. Unless there is something that has not been reported in the media, of course.

[Casehardened]

I have an idea that the appeal would be grounded in 'perverse verdicts'. Unless there is something that has not been reported in the media, of course.

I think you're absolutely correct in that the lawyers will seize on this one for an appeal; the few lines of the judge's summing up that were reported, indicate that he considered that the woman was too intoxicated to give consent, therefore as LS has pointed out, both individuals were equally culpable or innocent and should have received the same verdict.

Since I posted yesterday an article regarding the verdict has appeared:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-17781842

I consider that the jury in this case did listen to the evidence and returned a commonsense-kangaroo court type of verdict albeit one not acceptable to the legal profession and the more militant feminists (and indeed not acceptable to Mrs CH either when I discussed it with her)

During Evans' evidence, he told the jury he had gone to the hotel, let himself in to Mr McDonald's room and watched his friend and the woman having sex.

It was claimed Mr McDonald asked if his friend could "get involved", to which the woman said yes.

The jury presumably decided that the woman had willingly accompanied McDonald to the hotel, and considered that her intoxication was not as a result of 'having her drinks spiked' and the possibility that she may not have acted as she did if sober, simply a lesson to be learnt for the future, rather than a reason for jailing someone.

However they may have then considered that Evan's subsequent behaviour was that of a 'sleazebag' as LS eloquently puts it, and punished him with a guilty verdict.

I guess that they have assumed that a young woman might well consent to a sexual encounter with a well-known footballer, drunk or not, but would probably not have consented to his friends taking turns, had she been sober.

[LS]

The fact that McDonald was a party to the events, particularly in asking if Evans could get involved, indicates his culpability just as much as it does Evans.

Also telling, is the fact that McDonald phoned Evans saying "I've got a bird" which indicates some complicity.

I also don't grasp how the jury could make allowances for lessons to be learnt for the future, instead of jailing, when both parties are equally guilty. The Judge was aware enough that the woman wasn't in a fit state for consent to be (legally) given, so why was the jury ignorant of that fact when it came to McDonald?
On top of that, the jury then deciding to give Evans a guilty verdict just for being a sleazebag isn't right. That's what it comes down to.

I think the whole verdict has a distinctly fishy odour about it.

[Saffron]

I'm personally baffled by this verdict. One guilty and one innocent. Surely the complainant was in the same state of intoxication regardless?
Seems to me that the jury picked the bloke who behaved in the most sleazy way and have punished him for that.

[RFLH]

not saying there's been bias or anything, but if they weren't both footballers - would the verdict have been different do you think?

[Rights Fighter]

Crown could appeal the not guilty verdict of course.................using all of the above arguments......

[Izzy]

I wonder if the fact he left the hotel via the fire escape afterwards had anything to do with the guilty verdict?