Ched Evans wins appeal against rape conviction
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/21/ched-evans-wins-appeal-against-conviction
Opinions?
I always felt the evidence was clear, but weird the other guy in the case was let off. He's been so insistent that he's not guilty though.
Opinions?
I always felt the evidence was clear, but weird the other guy in the case was let off. He's been so insistent that he's not guilty though.
Scroll to see replies
I've always felt a bit uneasy with the case based on what's been reported, so pleased there will be a retrial with the fresh evidence. Hopefully this will lead to a fair and correct outcome, which ever way the new trial goes.
It's not weird: although the woman was literally falling down drunk, falling over in a kebab shop and leaving her handbag there before staggering off with a pizza, was described as extremely drunk by every witness who did not want to put their penis in her, and was so out of it that she didn't wake up when she pissed herself at some point in the night, the jury felt that McDonald could have had a reasonable belief in her consent having talked to her, gone to the hotel with her, is witnessed communicating with her there etc.
Evans on the other hand, turned up in the room (having lied to get the key) uninvited, unexpected, and unwanted. His brother and a mate who travelled with him are already outside the window, trying to film what happened inside without the consent of either McDonald or the woman. (I would love to know how they got there so quickly without Evans telling them where to go.) A combination of the interruption and hearing the giggling outside the window means McDonald stops having sex with her, and closes the curtains.
Before McDonald leaves, Evans starts to have sex with her. Evans insists that someone asked her first, but can't say who: both of the men in the room give evidence on oath that they didn't. Neither of the friends outside are called to give evidence that they heard it, or the "numerous" calls for more vigorous sex that he says she made. Similarly the hotel's night porter, who McDonald had asked on his way out to check on the woman as she was sick, could hear sex was happening in the room, but no "calling out" "**** me harder" etc.
When Evans stops having sex with her - he says because he was worried his girlfriend would ring, but it's possible he discovered that sex with semi-comatose women is really boring - he leaves via a fire escape.
So the question is where's his reasonable belief in consent? The only interaction they'd had outside the room turned out to be when he stepped over her slumped on the floor drunk. Neither McDonald or the woman wanted him in the room. The only conclusion from the mens' evidence is that, in fact, no-one asked her if she wanted to have sex with him and, given than none of the three people able to hear what happened in the room could hear the cries, that they didn't happen either.
He's been sent for retrial, and the reasons for overturning the first one are secret until that's over. I'd love to know what they are, but I still think he will be lucky to avoid a second conviction.
Evans on the other hand, turned up in the room (having lied to get the key) uninvited, unexpected, and unwanted. His brother and a mate who travelled with him are already outside the window, trying to film what happened inside without the consent of either McDonald or the woman. (I would love to know how they got there so quickly without Evans telling them where to go.) A combination of the interruption and hearing the giggling outside the window means McDonald stops having sex with her, and closes the curtains.
Before McDonald leaves, Evans starts to have sex with her. Evans insists that someone asked her first, but can't say who: both of the men in the room give evidence on oath that they didn't. Neither of the friends outside are called to give evidence that they heard it, or the "numerous" calls for more vigorous sex that he says she made. Similarly the hotel's night porter, who McDonald had asked on his way out to check on the woman as she was sick, could hear sex was happening in the room, but no "calling out" "**** me harder" etc.
When Evans stops having sex with her - he says because he was worried his girlfriend would ring, but it's possible he discovered that sex with semi-comatose women is really boring - he leaves via a fire escape.
So the question is where's his reasonable belief in consent? The only interaction they'd had outside the room turned out to be when he stepped over her slumped on the floor drunk. Neither McDonald or the woman wanted him in the room. The only conclusion from the mens' evidence is that, in fact, no-one asked her if she wanted to have sex with him and, given than none of the three people able to hear what happened in the room could hear the cries, that they didn't happen either.
He's been sent for retrial, and the reasons for overturning the first one are secret until that's over. I'd love to know what they are, but I still think he will be lucky to avoid a second conviction.
Well, I am interested to find out what the "new" evidence is.
From what I understand, having a conviction quashed is relatively rare.
From what I understand, having a conviction quashed is relatively rare.
Any links to any feminists having a stroke yet?
He's 27yo now, chances are he'll be 30 by the time this is concluded, one way or the other. I don't know the new evidence, clearly, but it's a huge example of how someone can spend their prime professional years defending the dumb actions of one night out.
Original post by DorianGrayism
Well, I am interested to find out what the "new" evidence is.
From what I understand, having a conviction quashed is relatively rare.
From what I understand, having a conviction quashed is relatively rare.
I would love to know - what he said was enough to convict him.
It is. It is noticeable that it's been sent back for retrial though, even though he's out on licence and would be finished with that in almost exactly twelve months.
Original post by Ninja_Cat
I don't think there will be a retrial, the new evidence might be highly embarrassing for the CPS and police.
They will know what it is and will have argued for a retrial in this, the second appeal hearing.
Original post by unprinted
They will know what it is and will have argued for a retrial in this, the second appeal hearing.
From what I've read today it is up to the CPS to decide whether it is worth pursuing a retrial and they have two months to decide. They have not stated whether they will or not yet.
Curious to see what the "new evidence" is.
'Trial by social media.'
Original post by Ninja_Cat
From what I've read today it is up to the CPS to decide whether it is worth pursuing a retrial and they have two months to decide. They have not stated whether they will or not yet.
The Court of Appeal said:
"Accordingly we order:
1. The appeal is allowed.
2. We quash the conviction.
3. The appellant will be retried on the allegation of rape
4. A fresh indictment must be served.
5. The appellant must be re-arraigned on that fresh indictment within 2 months of today.
.."
Nothing ambiguous there.
The CPS could decide to offer no evidence, but the Court of Appeal would not have ordered a retrial if the CPS had said there that they didn't want one.
Original post by unprinted
The Court of Appeal said:
"Accordingly we order:
1. The appeal is allowed.
2. We quash the conviction.
3. The appellant will be retried on the allegation of rape
4. A fresh indictment must be served.
5. The appellant must be re-arraigned on that fresh indictment within 2 months of today.
.."
Nothing ambiguous there.
The CPS could decide to offer no evidence, but the Court of Appeal would not have ordered a retrial if the CPS had said there that they didn't want one.
"Accordingly we order:
1. The appeal is allowed.
2. We quash the conviction.
3. The appellant will be retried on the allegation of rape
4. A fresh indictment must be served.
5. The appellant must be re-arraigned on that fresh indictment within 2 months of today.
.."
Nothing ambiguous there.
The CPS could decide to offer no evidence, but the Court of Appeal would not have ordered a retrial if the CPS had said there that they didn't want one.
The prosecution now has 8 weeks to hand over the full file to the defence.
In the majority of cases after 8 weeks the prosecution stands up in court and 'offers no evidence'.
Retrials are very rare, it'll be interesting to see if this one goes ahead.
(edited 8 years ago)
From what I've read there is a huge grey area. I just cannot understand how one man can be guilty and the other cannot, both have sex with the same girl with the difference being minutes.
Original post by DrSocSciences
He's 27yo now, chances are he'll be 30 by the time this is concluded, one way or the other. I don't know the new evidence, clearly, but it's a huge example of how someone can spend their prime professional years defending the dumb actions of one night out.
Staggeringly stupid. He was convicted based on what he said he'd done and what he said he'd not done.
McDonald, who was acquitted in the original trial, is currently playing for teams in the sixth tier of the English league, one of the regional leagues that make up the second level of 'non-league football' division.
His career is effectively over, even if he gets acquitted this time.
Original post by TheonlyMrsHolmes
From what I've read there is a huge grey area. I just cannot understand how one man can be guilty and the other cannot, both have sex with the same girl with the difference being minutes.
Have you read my post above?
The jury in the first trial clearly decided that the woman did not have the capacity to consent: she was too intoxicated to remember what she'd done with her handbag, never mind consent to sex.
However a mistaken belief in consent is a defence if, and only if, the belief is reasonable.
Based on what happened before arriving in the room, what happened in the room, and what happened afterwards, it's very easy to see how they thought that McDonald may have had a reasonable belief, albeit mistaken, but that beyond any reasonable doubt Evans did not.
Original post by unprinted
The Court of Appeal said:
"Accordingly we order:
1. The appeal is allowed.
2. We quash the conviction.
3. The appellant will be retried on the allegation of rape
4. A fresh indictment must be served.
5. The appellant must be re-arraigned on that fresh indictment within 2 months of today.
.."
Nothing ambiguous there.
The CPS could decide to offer no evidence, but the Court of Appeal would not have ordered a retrial if the CPS had said there that they didn't want one.
"Accordingly we order:
1. The appeal is allowed.
2. We quash the conviction.
3. The appellant will be retried on the allegation of rape
4. A fresh indictment must be served.
5. The appellant must be re-arraigned on that fresh indictment within 2 months of today.
.."
Nothing ambiguous there.
The CPS could decide to offer no evidence, but the Court of Appeal would not have ordered a retrial if the CPS had said there that they didn't want one.
The fact that the court of appeal ordered a retrial rather than just quashing it seems to imply they think there's still a reasonable chance he'll be convicted.
Original post by TheonlyMrsHolmes
From what I've read there is a huge grey area. I just cannot understand how one man can be guilty and the other cannot, both have sex with the same girl with the difference being minutes.
This is basically my view of the incident. She was either too drunk to consent vs both of them, or she wasn't drunk. If she want not drunk, surely it is his word against hers, and as a result no conviction.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Unconscious bias - is it time to rethink how we address VAWG?
- Trump ineligible to run for president in Colorado and Maine in 2024 Election
- Prime - law work experience!!!
- Students accused of rape at university bringing lawyers to hearings
- Enhanced dbs checks
- What do you think will happen to Donald the dump Trump?
- Help: Fitness to Practice Appeal!
- Applying for registration with a conviction
- Can someone please grade this for me?
- Is Israel winning
- Dismissed in Final year medical school over 0.1%
- will i get a criminal record for 3 train fines?
- Appeal student finance
- Is it alright if my boyfriend slaps me?
- India Willoughby reports jk rowling to the police
- Help! I'm struggling :( (moot presentation)
- Appealing a grade in Masters?
- How does one even go about answering this question!?
- Compelling reasons reject - appearing to Independent Assesor
- lost my mbbs offer
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
