Ched Evans Wins Appeal But Faces Retrial

[David Guiza]

No it isn't, the conviction came because she was deemed too drunk to be responsible for her actions, she gave consent, and the courts deemed she was not in a fit state to make that decision for herself. So why in this case did the court decide she was not responsible for her actions, but in a similar state they would decide she would be responsible for her actions if she, for example, killed someone?

 

Surely you are either responsible for what you do while drunk or not?

 

They didn't force themselves on an unconscious girl, she was acting (according to the transcripts) as any consenting girl would be in that situation, including asking Evans to "lick her out". I don't see how they can be held responsible for her getting too drunk to remember what she agreed to do.

That's because those two actions are completely different. In the first scenario SHE is too drunk to consent to sex with HIM, HE has committed the crime, not her. In the second scenario, SHE was too drunk to be in a fit state of mind to intentionally kill someone, SHE committed the crime.

Getting recklessly drunk and killing someone is murder or, at the very least, manslaughter. Having sex with somebody who is not in a fit state to consent is rape. Regardless of whether people think that is right or wrong. Yes it allows for dangerous territory regarding one night stands etc, but if that's what it takes to prevent men (lets face it, 99% of the time it is) taking advantage of intoxicated females then that's fine with me.

[Captain...]

That's because those two actions are completely different. In the first scenario SHE is too drunk to consent to sex with HIM, HE has committed the crime, not her. In the second scenario, SHE was too drunk to be in a fit state of mind to intentionally kill someone, SHE committed the crime.

Getting recklessly drunk and killing someone is murder or, at the very least, manslaughter. Having sex with somebody who is not in a fit state to consent is rape. Regardless of whether people think that is right or wrong. Yes it allows for dangerous territory regarding one night stands etc, but if that's what it takes to prevent men (lets face it, 99% of the time it is) taking advantage of intoxicated females then that's fine with me.

 

Consensual sex is not a crime.

[David Guiza]

Consensual sex is not a crime.

It is when the person is not in a fit state to consent. If you don't think that is the case then it's worrying that people like you could be on a jury.

If you have/were to have a daughter and she went out on the town - gets so off her face that she has no idea what she's doing/saying. Before being taken back to some blokes house, who then has sex with her, because she 'appeared' to want to, you would not have any issues with that whatsoever?

[Captain...]

It is when the person is not in a fit state to consent. If you don't think that is the case then it's worrying that people like you could be on a jury.

If you have/were to have a daughter and she went out on the town - gets so off her face that she has no idea what she's doing/saying. Before being taken back to some blokes house, who then has sex with her, because she 'appeared' to want to, you would not have any issues with that whatsoever?

 

Prove she was in no fit state to consent. Define the limits on drunkenness and at what limit she becomes too drunk to give consent and explain how Evans or Mcdonald are supposed to judge that.

 

She did not "appear to want it", she gave clear audible consent for Ched to get involved as corroborated by Mcdonald, you may say that is unreliable, but that was not the opinion of the judge. She wanted to have sex with Evans, Evans wanted to have sex with her, it was consensual. The fact she was drunk doesn't change that. If I want to do something when I am drunk, I am still responsible for my actions.

 

She wasn't incoherent nor was she stumbling around and unable to walk, she was not in any obvious way too drunk, including not being too drunk to consent to Mcdonald. So how does she become too drunk to consent to Evans a mere matter of minutes after consenting to Mcdonald.

 

If a girl has no idea what she is doing or saying then it is rape, I am not arguing that, but there is plenty of evidence that she was coherent, and knew what she was doing, including an error free text message sent not long before she met Mcdonald, walking unaided in the hotel lobby, and remembering that she had left the pizza outside. She was also having coherent if slightly slurred conversations in the taxi.

 

Of course that doesn't prove she wasn't too drunk, but it doesn't sound like the actions of someone who was, but if she was, and lets say for arguments sake she was, then why was Mcdonald acquitted? 

[Sir Fynwy]

Point out where I am wrong, I have read transcripts and the summing up, I have not read everything so if you know more than me tell me where I'm wrong.

You obviously haven't read the case, I'm not a teacher so do your own research

[Captain...]

You obviously haven't read the case, I'm not a teacher so do your own research

 

I have done, and I have shown a greater knowledge of the case in this thread than you. Your contribution has been that I am wrong, and that he is guilty.

 

If you can contradict any of my points, please do. But don't just tell me I'm wrong and then when I ask you to explain why I'm wrong you tell me to do my own research.

[Bellend Sebastian]

This is what we're talking about, right?

 

[David Guiza]

Prove she was in no fit state to consent. Define the limits on drunkenness and at what limit she becomes too drunk to give consent and explain how Evans or Mcdonald are supposed to judge that.

 

She did not "appear to want it", she gave clear audible consent for Ched to get involved as corroborated by Mcdonald, you may say that is unreliable, but that was not the opinion of the judge. She wanted to have sex with Evans, Evans wanted to have sex with her, it was consensual. The fact she was drunk doesn't change that. If I want to do something when I am drunk, I am still responsible for my actions.

 

She wasn't incoherent nor was she stumbling around and unable to walk, she was not in any obvious way too drunk, including not being too drunk to consent to Mcdonald. So how does she become too drunk to consent to Evans a mere matter of minutes after consenting to Mcdonald.

 

If a girl has no idea what she is doing or saying then it is rape, I am not arguing that, but there is plenty of evidence that she was coherent, and knew what she was doing, including an error free text message sent not long before she met Mcdonald, walking unaided in the hotel lobby, and remembering that she had left the pizza outside. She was also having coherent if slightly slurred conversations in the taxi.

 

Of course that doesn't prove she wasn't too drunk, but it doesn't sound like the actions of someone who was, but if she was, and lets say for arguments sake she was, then why was Mcdonald acquitted? 

It's not for me to prove that she was in no fit state to consent, that has already been done by the jury, as well as the fact that the conviction wasn't overturned. I'd imagine that, as with most things in law, it comes down to the 'reasonable man' test, and whether or not a reasonable man in that situation would consider that she was too drunk to consent. Which they obviously must have done.

I disagree. I think the fact that you're drunk does change that. Alcohol is a drug, and consequently is capable of altering a persons perceptions and decision making capabilities. As you've said, this kind of thing happens every week and 99% of the time nothing will come of it. But, that doesn't mean that it's not illegal or morally correct.

She went back to the hotel with McDonald alone, not Evans (as far as I'm aware) and he didn't show up until receiving a text saying something like "I've bought a bird back".  Perhaps the jury felt that she did consent truly to Evans, whereas she did to McDonald? Furthermore, although there's no crime against it, morally speaking going to somebody's hotel room to have sex with somebody who has just had sex with your 'friend' is hardly something that is going to stand you in good stead.

The problem with this case is that much of the public's view of rape is a violent and sordid attack. Which this clearly wasn't. As well as the fact that tabloid newspapers like to leave out important facts and bits of information, completely changing the tone of the story.

[Sir Fynwy]

I have done, and I have shown a greater knowledge of the case in this thread than you. Your contribution has been that I am wrong, and that he is guilty.

If you can contradict any of my points, please do. But don't just tell me I'm wrong and then when I ask you to explain why I'm wrong you tell me to do my own research.

You are right, I've not put details of the case on here, I don't need to since the justice system has dealt with it, I haven't seen anything in the edited points you have posted worth me pulling large parts of the legal argument into the thread. I would be slightly interested to understand why you are so interested in defending Mr. Evans with your one sided view of the events but I really can't get all that worked up about it.

Evans has not only had his day in court but also had leave to appeal rejected, it's a closed case in my book.

[Captain...]

You are right, I've not put details of the case on here, I don't need to since the justice system has dealt with it, I haven't seen anything in the edited points you have posted worth me pulling large parts of the legal argument into the thread. I would be slightly interested to understand why you are so interested in defending Mr. Evans with your one sided view of the events but I really can't get all that worked up about it.

Evans has not only had his day in court but also had leave to appeal rejected, it's a closed case in my book.

 

My reason for being so interested in this case is that I don't think that it is right that a young man can have his life ruined because someone else drank too much and made some poor choices and some other people think that she shouldn't have to take responsibility for her actions.

 

There was no evidence of any force or violence, there was clearly no criminal intent otherwise he wouldn't have openly told the police what happened, she also never accused either of them of rape.

 

There are such things as miscarriages of justice and unjust laws.

[Captain...]

It's not for me to prove that she was in no fit state to consent, that has already been done by the jury, as well as the fact that the conviction wasn't overturned. I'd imagine that, as with most things in law, it comes down to the 'reasonable man' test, and whether or not a reasonable man in that situation would consider that she was too drunk to consent. Which they obviously must have done.

I disagree. I think the fact that you're drunk does change that. Alcohol is a drug, and consequently is capable of altering a persons perceptions and decision making capabilities. As you've said, this kind of thing happens every week and 99% of the time nothing will come of it. But, that doesn't mean that it's not illegal or morally correct.

She went back to the hotel with McDonald alone, not Evans (as far as I'm aware) and he didn't show up until receiving a text saying something like "I've bought a bird back".  Perhaps the jury felt that she did consent truly to Evans, whereas she did to McDonald? Furthermore, although there's no crime against it, morally speaking going to somebody's hotel room to have sex with somebody who has just had sex with your 'friend' is hardly something that is going to stand you in good stead.

The problem with this case is that much of the public's view of rape is a violent and sordid attack. Which this clearly wasn't. As well as the fact that tabloid newspapers like to leave out important facts and bits of information, completely changing the tone of the story.

 

Ok as a reasonable man how would you judge someone as too drunk to consent?

 

Is it memory loss? Because she didn't remember going back to the hotel with McDonald.

 

I agree that rape isn't always violent, and that Evans clearly is a bit of a dick, and his actions weren't exactly honourable, but as I said before however he came to be in the hotel room with the woman is irrelevant, if she consented to sex.

 

The way I see is that if she hadn't been drunk, no crime would have been committed, so why does her being drunk make him a criminal?

[LanguedocFox]

I've been reading about this case over the past couple of days, since Evans was released. I have to say that my immediate reaction to any rape case, especially where the woman was drunk, is that the guy is guilty. Prejudice, I know, but I am being honest.

 

However, from what I have read, there appear to be significant grounds for doubt. There's a well written and well argued website putting his side of the argument, and it will be interesting to see if the independent Criminal Cases Review Commission takes up his case. One of the interesting sidelights on this is that most of the complaints against him since his conviction centre on the fact that he has neither admitted his guilt nor shown any remorse: but if he didn't rape the girl, what would he be showing remorse for?

 

Any thoughts?

[Ross-Kemp]

If he honestly believes he is innocent, why would he show remorse and apologise?

I certainly think the truth still hasn't been revealed, maybe we will never know.

If any of you believed you were wrongly accused of this crime and you went to prison and then your old employer offered you your job, what would you say ?

I can tell ya, if you say no, you're full of shit.

[Captain...]

Absolutely no way Evans should be encouraged to resume his career as a footballer!

Yes, others commited of this awful crime have been re-instated into society, but a lot is dependent on what they do. Workers in the public sector are NOT aloowed to resume their careers before being 'risk assessed'. More often than not this leads to a refusal to resume the same post!

 

Notice Hughes and McCormick have been mentioned above. both guilty of horrendous crimes BUT, importantly,  both openly admitted to what they did and showed remorse.

Evans hasn't, indeed his 'circle' have constantly  tried to shift the blame for his crime onto the victim.

 

I'm no expert on psychology or similar, but I can speak with some authority about this. As it happens, my 'other half' was the victim of a serious physical and sexual assault  by a 'workmate' many years ago... Even now, all this time later, she is reluctant to go anywhere outdoors on her own, in the unlikely event of 'him' being there! . Physically she has recovered but mentally the incident has wrecked her life. I guess the same might be true for Evans' victim, with  the likelihood of him making TV appearances making things worse for her!!

 

But this wasn't a serious physical and sexual assault, she wasn't attacked and she didn't go to the police to accuse them of rape, she went to the police to try and find her phone, it is a very different case.

 

IF he had violently attacked and raped a woman then he would have no place in the football world, the fact he didn't and the fact that quite a few people sympathise with what happened to him and see it as a stupid mistake rather than anything malicious or dangerous. His crime was misjudging how drunk she was, and I think he has been punished and should be given a second chance as it was a mistake rather than the actions of a dangerous criminal.

[Finnegan]

His crime wasn't misjudging how drunk she was, his crime was conning his way in to a hotel room she was in and joining in sexual contact that she - according to a jury of his peers - didn't consent to.

[Guest MattP]

Why is everyone saying she consented to sex with the other bloke? If that was the case why was he up for it in the first place?

These cases are absolutely horrid. Just luck of the draw I think for a lot if geezers, if we pick up a girl for drunken sex and she can barely remember in the morning we could be one move from a few years inside.

I've been raped numerous times on the logic I'm reading for convictions.

[Strokes]

I didn't rape you matt, you clearly said yes.

[LanguedocFox]

His crime wasn't misjudging how drunk she was, his crime was conning his way in to a hotel room she was in and joining in sexual contact that she - according to a jury of his peers - didn't consent to.

 

 

He had apparently paid for the room on his credit card (for his friend McDonald) so it's not entirely fair to say that he conned his way into the room. And while a jury of his peers did come to the conclusion that the sex was non-consensual, I don't know that that is a reasonable conclusion, given the evidence. The complainant says that she remembered nothing between leaving the nightclub and waking up the next morning in the hotel bed, apart from being in a kebab shop. However, she was clearly seen acting and behaving in a way that throws doubt on her story. There was also absolutely no medical evidence of violent sexual conduct towards the girl.

 

Guilt should be based on "beyond reasonable doubt" and I think there is a great deal to doubt here.

[Finnegan]

He had apparently paid for the room on his credit card (for his friend McDonald) so it's not entirely fair to say that he conned his way into the room. And while a jury of his peers did come to the conclusion that the sex was non-consensual, I don't know that that is a reasonable conclusion, given the evidence. The complainant says that she remembered nothing between leaving the nightclub and waking up the next morning in the hotel bed, apart from being in a kebab shop. However, she was clearly seen acting and behaving in a way that throws doubt on her story. There was also absolutely no medical evidence of violent sexual conduct towards the girl.

Guilt should be based on "beyond reasonable doubt" and I think there is a great deal to doubt here.

Obviously the jury, who heard the full lot through the entire trial, disagree with you.

I've read, in detail, Ched's website. I very much want him to be innocent. It just doesn't look that way and the legal system backs up that view.

According to his own website, he conned access to the room from the night desk and fled afterwards through the fire escape.

[breadandcheese]

Obviously the jury, who heard the full lot through the entire trial, disagree with you.

I've read, in detail, Ched's website. I very much want him to be innocent. It just doesn't look that way and the legal system backs up that view.

According to his own website, he conned access to the room from the night desk and fled afterwards through the fire escape.

If there was a retrial for Evans, I do wonder whether the changing dynamic of the case would change the verdict.

The court case was a joint case against Evans and McDonald, so the jury were faced with a situation where the only details from what happened inside the hotel room and whether consent was given, were provided by the co-accused (seeing as the victim has no recollection of the night).

If there was a new trial, it would just be of Evans, changing the whole dynamic of the case. The jury would now be faced with a situation of having the testimony from an innocent witness, present in the room at the time (McDonald), saying that the victim gave consent to Evans. This innocent witness would be corroborating the accused's version of events. In this situation, would there now be enough doubt for the jury to return a different verdict? Purely speculation but I reckon they would. Quirk of the legal system I guess.

[The Year Of The Fox]

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29679563

[Kitchandro]

It's not for me to say whether someone is a rapist or not, but I can't believe how quick some people are to accept the justice system is right.

[Unabomber]

I THINK THERE'S BEEN A RAPE UP THERE!

 

[Finnegan]

It's not for me to say whether someone is a rapist or not, but I can't believe how quick some people are to accept the justice system is right.

Personally, I find it more shocking how many people want to completely ignore a thorough criminal hearing and assume a young rape victim is just some slag that prosecuted maliciously.

[Guest ttfn]

Personally, I find it more shocking how many people want to completely ignore a thorough criminal hearing and assume a young rape victim is just some slag that prosecuted maliciously.

Nobody's saying that though. It's commonly acknowledged that she did not instigate the prosecution herself (which may say more about the way that young women who are raped in similar circumstances feel they will be treated by our society/police today than whether she actually believed she had been raped).

The issue that people are uncomfortable with is that, with only their own corroborating testimonies to incriminate them, Evans was considered to not have reasonable belief that she had consented and McDonald did. Certainly having read extracts of their testimony, not only did Evans think he had reasonable belief that she consented but McDonald thought the same (in Evans' case). The details of the specifics are online on Evans' website but assuming McDonald and Evans werent lying (and neither has been pursued for perjury or a similar offence) it seems hard to believe that the jury could conclude that Evans did not have reasonable belief of consent from the evidence they presented.

Whether Evans is a scumbag for "taking advantage" of a woman whose judgement was at the very least significantly impaired is pretty much indisputable.

Whether he is a rapist is another matter altogether, and one that clearly the jury was convinced was the case. The facts that have been released make some people uncomfortable with the verdict.

Personally I'd be in favour of some sort of scale for crimes that currently fall under the solitary definition of rape, much as we have for murder. I think we'd get higher conviction rates but that will never sit well with the types of people who force Judy Finnigan into apologising for a perfectly reasonable point, which was clumsily worded because of the fact that we don't have any flexibility in our wording of crimes which can be extremely different from one another.