Ched Evans - Case goes to appeal

Case likely to get heard next year.

This doesn't mean that he will eventually get found not guilty, but it shows that there was sufficient doubt for it to be reconsidered. As some will know, I always thought the evidence seemed a bit flimsy.

Certainly wouldn't him to get away with it on a technicality, though.

 

It's not 'all' being reconsidered though. He's had that appeal and the CoA rejected it.

His lawyers have apparently found new evidence and the CCRC believes it's substantial enough that that it's worth the CoA looking again at his conviction in light of it. They're not going to re-hash the whole lot. Will be interesting to see whether his lawyers release the CCRC's reasoning as the panel themselves aren't allowed to.

 

It was just a figure of speech - but corrected for you.

Although the investigation took over a year, apparently, so it looks like it wasn't just one bit of evidence they looked at.

 

I would guess it will be new bad character evidence about the victim. Clearly not a slam dunk smoking gun - he could have gone direct to the CoA if his investigators had found that - so suggestive instead. The CCRC have a pretty good strike rate. 70% of referrals results in a quashed conviction so he must be quite optimistic today.

 

Quite probably deleted stuff recovered from her or other witnesses mobiles and computers / social media (or metadata from providers) or possibly more CCTV from sources other than those in the police evidence.

If for example you posted something on facebook and then deleted it, formatted your drive and incinerated your PC it would still be out there somewhere, even if that was a private message immediately deleted by a recipient so long as it hasn't been totally overwritten (which on today's terrabyte hard drives is unlikely). Get the metadata from the IP and simply link the two computers and you're in business.

Not saying it is anything to do with this but did you know that the sound on recovered footage can be matched to the hum of the national grid to get an exact time and date of recording? Pretty damned clever if you ask me.

 

Burning your pc etc would do diddly once you have posted or sent anything. Text messages are a good example. Both sender and receiver can delete the message but it still exists on the phone company's servers and instantly retrievable.

 

From what was published I was surprised he was ever convicted, but of course we weren't told all details that the jury heard. If it turns out to be a false accusation then I hope the accuser is taken to the cleaners.

Just read about John Leslie here https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/john-leslie-went-350-000-070352931.html to see how I beleive both sides in any case should remain anonymous until convicted. Publicising a case to get other potential victims is not a valid reason.

 

Officially they only save the metadata ... but we all know about GCHQ and the NSA vetting every single call, text and e-mail sent albeit they're electronically searching for keywords, not listening in (unless you are a target e.g. a terrorist suspect or a VIP).

 

Well, unless Evans and/or the girl were discussing their next terrorist atrocity, they should be safe then.

 

Be interesting to see how this shakes out. I thought the info released cast a lot of doubt over the prosecution's case, but in fairness it was released by Evans' defence so they were hardly going to post smoking guns on his website. That needs to be taken into account. Still, based on what was released I think the conviction was harsh. I'd be happy to revise my opinion if evidence to the contrary emerged.

 

No, because according to Snowden they record everything and I mean everything ... how long they keep it I don't know but as she reported him the next day I doubt they would have deleted anything at all. You don't really believe only terrorists come under the spotlight do you?

 

How's Iain Duncan Smith's volcano army coming along Godfather? I thought they might be given a debut when those idiots attacked the cereal shop but I'm still waiting.

 

Can someone please translate?

 

When I first read about the case I thought thought the original decision was crazy, but the more detail I read about his behaviour that night the more uncomfortable I became with what he actually did. If rape is having sex with someone without their consent then he came pretty d*mn close to that line.

 

I think it depends who you believe and who's telling the story .... personally I'm inclined to think she was well up for all that went on.

 

Well, yeah. That's rape.

 

It fitted the line but thanks anyway smarta55.

 

You're right. How people feel about the case really seems to depend on from what point of view the article was written from that they've read. Its a good job we've got and decent justice system but I cant hep thinking that any publicity is goign to affect cases such as this. There should be a complete media blackout until trial is done & dusted in all cases whether they involve a famousish person or not.

 

So how do you have open justice then if the media can't report on a trial in progress? How would the public even know if was going on? Bare in mind we already have very strict contempt of court laws which our media tend to stick to by only reporting the facts and/or comments made by the prosecutor and defence barrister.

That aside the Evans trial is done and dusted. As is his first attempt at an appeal. He's a convicted rapist until the Court of Appeal say otherwise.

 

Hypothetically does Evans have any avenues of recourse if the conviction is quashed?

Either against the process itself (police/CPS), or against the online lynch mob who caused various clubs to withdraw their employment offers when he had been released?

I would like to think the online keyboard warriors who went for him were vulnerable here, but I doubt it.

 

I should add that this forum has always been reasonable in discussions about this case, but other forums and twitter were bonkers if you ask me. They'd have burnt him at the stake given the chance.

 

It would depend on why the conviction was quashed to be honest. If the police have acted properly but subsequently Evans' investigators have found something which the police should have found in the normal course of their investigation and/or they did find it but covered it then he could have a claim against them. If it's the case that actually they've simply gone above and beyond a dug something up from the dark recesses of god knows where - in my opinion more likely to be the situation given they're private investigators funded by a multi-millionaire - then it would be unreasonable to expect the police to have done the same thing. He will struggle to get compensation for his time spent in prison too, even if the conviction is quashed, as the test to succeed there is pretty onerous.

 

For me, open justice is a jury led decision based system which is documented, fair and consistent.

How would the public know it was goign on? They wouldn't. That's my point. Why should they know its going on until a decision has been reached. In the public interest is somewhat different to interesting to the public in my opinion.

Hypothetically if the Evans case had been brought without being publicised would the jury have cottoned on to his celebrityish status, his money etc? Would the decision have been the same? Possibly, possibly not. There's an argument that the decision could have been swayed by this or media coverage. I just don't see why the public need to be involved until it's done and dusted.

Certain crimes invoke a mob type reaction which causes irreparable damage to the lives of people unjustly accused.

 

So a high profile public figure, say a politician, is accused of behaviour for which he is charged with a crime. After protracted deliberations the jury acquit him of the crime but it clear from the evidence that came out during the trial that his behaviour was clearly wrong, indicated he was unsuitable for public life and was part of a pattern of behaviour he had not revealed to his constituents. Are you saying that all the public would know was there was a trial and he was found not guilty? That doesn't seem right to me.

Plus the jury wouldn't have needed to cotton on to Evans' status. The prosecutor would have highlighted it within his/her opening statement to the court. It was after all pretty fundamental to the case.

 

For me it's two different things. If he's accused of a crime then he should be allowed to face these charges without media speculation or public advertising.

If he has behaved badly which has or will impact on the job performance or suitability then this should be considered separately according to employment law or contract or by the party the politician represents, suspending if required. Of course if there is a court case pending then this needs to be considered after that is done and dusted so as not to prejudice the case.

 

One of the tenets of British (and by virtue much of the world's) justice is that it has to be seen to be done. Not seen dependent on how rich or famous you are. Woo knows where that murky path will lead once you start having a two tier justice system - one for us and one for them......... oh wait

 

No tiers. Every case, both acuser & acusee should remain anonymous until it's settled.

 

Regardless of whether his appeal is successful or not he is still a f**king lowlife scumbag and I have absolutely no sympathy for him.

 

There is no reason for them to be vulnerable unless they were threatening. He remains a convicted rapist. No reason to object to a campaign to prevent him playing for your club. It's a legitimate POV concerning a convicted rapist.

If he were acquitted it wouldn't change what had gone before only what comes next. But he still had sex with a virtually comatose woman. And people can freely object to that if they wish.

 

I'm struggling with the logic of this as I can only it see it offering help to those who have something to hide. Plus when is something 'settled'? Do you considered the Ched Evans case to be settled?

 

This is only according to her ... and exactly where they will catch her out IMO.

 

It helps the falsely accused. I think their rights or privacy are more important than our right to read a bit of gossip. Craig Charles, is another famous example I can come up with but I also remember another non-famous chap who lost his friends, his job and hence his house due to an allegation that was eventually proved false simply becasue he was outed in the local rag.

I do consider the Ched Evans case settled. He's been convicted. Until (and if) this is overturned, he's a rapist.

 

I'm pretty sure from what I read that she wasn't comatose but didn't consent to him. His mate got off the rape charge because she willfully went back to the hotel room with him, but Ched was let in to the same room with a porters key and basically joined in the action. That was the crux of the case.

 

Please explain why an innocent man should not be protected?

Let's face it, had Evans been acquitted the hateful campaign against him still wouldn't have ceased, prospective employers would have still shied away in fear of a bad reception, all of which would very badly affect his career and just as importantly his future career as this type of mud always sticks.

Until conviction anonymity for both parties is the only sensible solution.

 

Which if she was up for it as Evans says then it still isn't rape, not by a million miles.