Ched Evans

Status
Not open for further replies.
HellsBells said:
You're more than welcome to disagree with the verdict but as Pixie says you have to respect the fact that your opinion is based on nowhere near the full evidence and the jury's is based on it all.

I think it's very disrespectful to believe that any of us are qualified to make a decision based on snippets and that we know better than the jury.
Click to expand...
In broad principle, I agree with that, but it's a huge leap from there to say that if you don't believe that a jury gets everything right then you have a huge problem with the British justice system and we need loads of reform.

Juries (or should I say members of juries) can be affected by lots of things. The judge's summing up, the fact that one barrister is more articulate or has a more persuasive manner than another (even if the actual evidence itself is not especially conclusive), their own individual experiences and/or prejudices, or the fact that one of the jurors is particularly persuasive when they come to deliberation. Even the fact that it's Friday afternoon and they just don't want to come back next week!
Equally, some pieces of evidence are deemed as inadmissible to a jury, or don't appear until after the verdict.

I sat on a jury at an Old Bailey trial, about 15 years ago. We couldn't come to a verdict. The accused was undoubtedly a nasty piece of work, and there was more than one member of the jury who would have liked to have sent that person down because, quite frankly, that person was scum; and had almost certainly been involved in SOME wrongdoing. But on the evidence, it effectively seemed like one person's word against another's, and we couldn't be certain exactly what it was that the accused had done. We deliberated for ages, before on Friday evening agreed on a not guilty verdict. Had there been a couple more eloquent and vociferous people on the side of those wanting a guilty verdict, it might have gone a different way. Maybe one or more people changed their view because they just wanted to go home or to the pub, or had simply become tired of the whole deliberation process. I'll never know.

Many, many years ago, my grandfather was on a jury in the trial of a woman who had killed her violent husband by pushing him down the stairs. In those days a 12-0 verdict was needed, and 11 jurors said that she was guilty. My grandfather was adamant that it was self defence and therefore not guilty. He refused to be swayed, and slowly one by one he persuaded the others round to his way of thinking until eventually all 12 agreed on a not guilty verdict. Had another man sat there instead of my grandfather, she would almost certainly have been found guilty, and this was in the days of capital punishment.

So the jury system is the best option out there. I firmly believe that. But sometimes complete knackers sit on it. Sometimes racists/raving chauvanists (sp?) or feminists do. People who don't understand what is going on. People who don't care. It certainly isn't infallible.

In the Evans case, I agree with you. I simply don't know enough about all of the evidence to say one way or another. All I do know is that I would have loads of questions that I'd want answering before I could be confident beyond reasonable doubt.
 


Kevin Arnott's right boot said:
In broad principle, I agree with that, but it's a huge leap from there to say that if you don't believe that a jury gets everything right then you have a huge problem with the British justice system and we need loads of reform.

Juries (or should I say members of juries) can be affected by lots of things. The judge's summing up, the fact that one barrister is more articulate or has a more persuasive manner than another (even if the actual evidence itself is not especially conclusive), their own individual experiences and/or prejudices, or the fact that one of the jurors is particularly persuasive when they come to deliberation. Even the fact that it's Friday afternoon and they just don't want to come back next week!
Equally, some pieces of evidence are deemed as inadmissible to a jury, or don't appear until after the verdict.

I sat on a jury at an Old Bailey trial, about 15 years ago. We couldn't come to a verdict. The accused was undoubtedly a nasty piece of work, and there was more than one member of the jury who would have liked to have sent that person down because, quite frankly, that person was scum; and had almost certainly been involved in SOME wrongdoing. But on the evidence, it effectively seemed like one person's word against another's, and we couldn't be certain exactly what it was that the accused had done. We deliberated for ages, before on Friday evening agreed on a not guilty verdict. Had there been a couple more eloquent and vociferous people on the side of those wanting a guilty verdict, it might have gone a different way. Maybe one or more people changed their view because they just wanted to go home or to the pub, or had simply become tired of the whole deliberation process. I'll never know.

Many, many years ago, my grandfather was on a jury in the trial of a woman who had killed her violent husband by pushing him down the stairs. In those days a 12-0 verdict was needed, and 11 jurors said that she was guilty. My grandfather was adamant that it was self defence and therefore not guilty. He refused to be swayed, and slowly one by one he persuaded the others round to his way of thinking until eventually all 12 agreed on a not guilty verdict. Had another man sat there instead of my grandfather, she would almost certainly have been found guilty, and this was in the days of capital punishment.

So the jury system is the best option out there. I firmly believe that. But sometimes complete knackers sit on it. Sometimes racists/raving chauvanists (sp?) or feminists do. People who don't understand what is going on. People who don't care. It certainly isn't infallible.

In the Evans case, I agree with you. I simply don't know enough about all of the evidence to say one way or another. All I do know is that I would have loads of questions that I'd want answering before I could be confident beyond reasonable doubt.
Click to expand...

Thats why I don't understand jury service, any Tom, Dick or Harry gets called up don't they? Madness.
 
She wasn't rendered unconscious, she suffered memory loss (if she's to be believed).
One of the expert witnesses gave testimony that it's perfectly possible to be 'reasonably with it' at the time, but later not remember a thing about any of it. He suggested this was a possible instance of that.

Why McDonald was acquitted:
He was acquitted because the jury believed that the actions of the woman, in meeting him in the street, agreeing to go back to the hotel, and having multiple opportunities to change her mind gave McDonald a reasonable impression that consent was given. Consent can be express or implied. In this case the jury believed it was certainly implied, and may have actually been expressed.
They also believed they were judging him on HIS individual actions and believed he personally did not rape her.
It's very unclear if they'd considered a joint enterprise situation where McDonald might have reasonably known Evans was going to have sex without her consent. But regardless, they acquitted him on the basis she HAD agreed to sex with him.
It doesn't matter if she later becomes drunk - the jury were happy that she'd consented prior (that doesn't mean you can get agreement 2 days earlier then have sex when you like... just that effectively this was one 'transaction' which she was ok with).

Why Evans was convicted:
Evans had not engaged in any behaviour with the girl previously to suggest consent had been given - either express or implied.
The jury believed that the girl was, by the time she'd reached the hotel, incapable of offering consent. Evans (unlike McDonald) had not reached prior agreement to sex, and Evans knew this. He would have been aware that consent hadn't been given.
Of course, he contends that consent was given, as does his witness McDonald, but the jury have chosen to believe she was not in a fit state to consent and that Evans knew it.
His specific actions in obtaining an additional key, and leaving by the fire exit certainly don't make him guilty, but they haven't added to his character either.

The long and short of it is that Evans has turned up at the last minute, as two people are having sex, one of whom is believed to be generally incapable of given additional consent to Evans.
Evans has had sex with her anyway, knowingly not having obtained proper consent, and left the building. Ergo convicted.


I'm not giving any personal opinion on this, just spelling it out for those that wonder how such decisions came about.
 
Frijj said:
Trial by a random selection of your countrymen/women is the only fair way
Click to expand...
When you serve on a jury mate you may change your opinion. The one time I've did it I came away praying I never get sent to court and have to rely on the jury to free me.
 
To all former jurors on here, best not talk about went on in the jury room.
 
Many in the legal system believe juries can cause specific issues that are to the detriment of justice.
I think the majority believe it's still a very good system, but in very complex cases, the jury can make matters worse and add an element of 'lottery' to a verdict. Any element of 'lottery' is never conducive to a sound verdict.

Courts make mistakes. It's a little unfair to say 'the jury' makes mistakes, as if to say it's all down to them. As others have said, a particularly persuasive barrister may influence the jury, a judge may misdirect, or omit a vital piece of guidance, a piece of evidence, or testimony could be false...

Mistakes are made. Any legal system worth its salt will acknowledge this and implement measures to try and minimise the possibility (in the first instance) or correct a mistake (in the second), and sadly, in the third instance, posthumously pardon someone.

The point of a jury is NOT to be an expert at all. It's to test what the common person would conclude. Essentially to represent society at large. That said, it's fairly well constrained by law, so they can only choose options that the law has previously agreed to (in general).

Social media is currently ahead of our ability to deal with it effectively.
The law itself already covers social media, it's just our capacity to stop people breaking the law that's the problem. In a few more years, ISP's might be compelled to be more accountable (and therefore individuals will be more accountable too - which is the ultimate goal).
 
Last edited:
FanchesterCity said:
She wasn't rendered unconscious, she suffered memory loss (if she's to be believed).
One of the expert witnesses gave testimony that it's perfectly possible to be 'reasonably with it' at the time, but later not remember a thing about any of it. He suggested this was a possible instance of that.

Why McDonald was acquitted:
He was acquitted because the jury believed that the actions of the woman, in meeting him in the street, agreeing to go back to the hotel, and having multiple opportunities to change her mind gave McDonald a reasonable impression that consent was given. Consent can be express or implied. In this case the jury believed it was certainly implied, and may have actually been expressed.
They also believed they were judging him on HIS individual actions and believed he personally did not rape her.
It's very unclear if they'd considered a joint enterprise situation where McDonald might have reasonably known Evans was going to have sex without her consent. But regardless, they acquitted him on the basis she HAD agreed to sex with him.
It doesn't matter if she later becomes drunk - the jury were happy that she'd consented prior (that doesn't mean you can get agreement 2 days earlier then have sex when you like... just that effectively this was one 'transaction' which she was ok with).

Why Evans was convicted:
Evans had not engaged in any behaviour with the girl previously to suggest consent had been given - either express or implied.
The jury believed that the girl was, by the time she'd reached the hotel, incapable of offering consent. Evans (unlike McDonald) had not reached prior agreement to sex, and Evans knew this. He would have been aware that consent hadn't been given.
Of course, he contends that consent was given, as does his witness McDonald, but the jury have chosen to believe she was not in a fit state to consent and that Evans knew it.
His specific actions in obtaining an additional key, and leaving by the fire exit certainly don't make him guilty, but they haven't added to his character either.

The long and short of it is that Evans has turned up at the last minute, as two people are having sex, one of whom is believed to be generally incapable of given additional consent to Evans.
Evans has had sex with her anyway, knowingly not having obtained proper consent, and left the building. Ergo convicted.


I'm not giving any personal opinion on this, just spelling it out for those that wonder how such decisions came about.
Click to expand...

one of the problems i have with all of that is the prosecution (and many on here) used the fact she was drunk at 3am in the kebab shop before she met either of them to convict evans yet not mcdonald. i don't think it matters how much time either had to gain consent if at that time she was already drunk and seemingly had no more alcohol in that hour. she herself said she had no memory beyond 3am, so again what ever might have been said between all of them in that time surely can't be used as consent as again according to the prosecution she was drunk at 3am as well as 4am so was in no state to give consent.

either both guilty or both not.
 
HellsBells said:
I agree with that. However it's the British justice system. So if you disagree with his charge and guilt then you disagree with the fundamental tenets of British Justice and we need a shit load of reform.

Or we trust the jury and the evidence provided to them, and the appeals process
Click to expand...

Disagree entirely.
Disagreeing with one specific verdict doesn't mean the entire system is broken.
Any legal system must anticipate mistakes. I would be a truly naive system that believed itself infallible.
Once in a while there are some perverse verdicts (a specific legal term).
More often, there are some 'curious' verdicts (not a specific legal term).

This, I would suggest, is a curious one. That's all.

elder said:
one of the problems i have with all of that is the prosecution (and many on here) used the fact she was drunk at 3am in the kebab shop before she met either of them to convict evans yet not mcdonald. i don't think it matters how much time either had to gain consent if at that time she was already drunk and seemingly had no more alcohol in that hour. she herself said she had no memory beyond 3am, so again what ever might have been said between all of them in that time surely can't be used as consent as again according to the prosecution she was drunk at 3am as well as 4am so was in no state to give consent.

either both guilty or both not.
Click to expand...

No, you can give consent whilst drunk. Being drunk doesn't make you necessarily incapable of making a choice.
This is really important, and people have equated 'drunk' to 'incapable' and this is not the case in law.
She had exhibited a number of behaviours that showed she COULD make decisions for herself, albeit under the influence.

In R v Bree [2007] EWCA 256, the Court of Appeal explored the issue of capacity and consent, stating that, if, through drink, or for any other reason, a complainant had temporarily lost her capacity to choose whether to have sexual intercourse, she was not consenting, and subject to the defendant's state of mind, if intercourse took place, that would be rape. However, where a complainant had voluntarily consumed substantial quantities of alcohol, but nevertheless remained capable of choosing whether to have intercourse, and agreed to do so, that would not be rape. Further, they identified that capacity to consent may evaporate well before a complainant becomes unconscious. Whether this is so or not, however, depends on the facts of the case.

with McDonald, there was sufficient evidence to support his claim that consent was given, regardless of her being intoxicated. She'd sent well formed text messages and paid for food with the correct change prior and during her time with McDonald, which suggests she had a fair level of cognitive ability, and enough to 'choose' her actions.

With Evans, there was no evidence to support that. His 'consent' claim was always going to be much more difficult to prove.

You might argue he didn't have to prove it, merely to create enough doubt in the mind of the jury. However, evidently he didn't create enough doubt.

If you look at this at a very high, and crude level. He's discovered his mate has a girl. He's gained entry into the room via deception, and had sex with a woman inside, within a few minutes, then literally made a rapid exit. When looked at like that, it becomes less credible that he's taken any consideration of consent into account.

Still room for doubt though? maybe. The jury thought not.
 
Last edited:
FanchesterCity said:
Disagree entirely.
Disagreeing with one specific verdict doesn't mean the entire system is broken.
Any legal system must anticipate mistakes. I would be a truly naive system that believed itself infallible.
Once in a while there are some perverse verdicts (a specific legal term).
More often, there are some 'curious' verdicts (not a specific legal term).

This, I would suggest, is a curious one. That's all.



No, you can give consent whilst drunk. Being drunk doesn't make you necessarily incapable of making a choice.
This is really important, and people have equated 'drunk' to 'incapable' and this is not the case in law.
She had exhibited a number of behaviours that showed she COULD make decisions for herself, albeit under the influence.

In R v Bree [2007] EWCA 256, the Court of Appeal explored the issue of capacity and consent, stating that, if, through drink, or for any other reason, a complainant had temporarily lost her capacity to choose whether to have sexual intercourse, she was not consenting, and subject to the defendant's state of mind, if intercourse took place, that would be rape. However, where a complainant had voluntarily consumed substantial quantities of alcohol, but nevertheless remained capable of choosing whether to have intercourse, and agreed to do so, that would not be rape. Further, they identified that capacity to consent may evaporate well before a complainant becomes unconscious. Whether this is so or not, however, depends on the facts of the case.

with McDonald, there was sufficient evidence to support his claim that consent was given, regardless of her being intoxicated. She'd sent well formed text messages and paid for food with the correct change prior and during her time with McDonald, which suggests she had a fair level of cognitive ability, and enough to 'choose' her actions.

With Evans, there was no evidence to support that. His 'consent' claim was always going to be much more difficult to prove.

You might argue he didn't have to prove it, merely to create enough doubt in the mind of the jury. However, evidently he didn't create enough doubt.

If you look at this at a very high, and crude level. He's discovered his mate has a girl. He's gained entry into the room via deception, and had sex with a woman inside, within a few minutes, then literally made a rapid exit. When looked at like that, it becomes less credible that he's taken any consideration of consent into account.

Still room for doubt though? maybe. The jury thought not.
Click to expand...

Exactly still room for doubt. I've said before on the seemingly endless threads that I believe their version of events regarding consent and would not have convicted either. The jury on the day did and here we are...

Apparently Evans wasn't that crash hot on the witness stand or in court in general. I'm sure would have had influence with the jury
 
He is a convicted rapist. This decision, to date has been supported by two appeal courts.

I will now be interested to see what happens regarding the CCTV footage on his website, and the violation of his victim's right to anonymity.
 
All three of them should have been given 3 months for being utter fuckwits and that should have been that.
 
not spavin said:
What happened was that a woman who could barely stand up (CCTV evidence) was taken back to Evans' hotel room. Evens then invited a friend along (the police recovered a text from Evans saying "I've got a bird"). Despite the vague text, Evans' friend knew that he was supposed to go to a specific hotel. This suggests that the hotel was booked for the express purposes of bringing a girl back for the pair to have sex with.

The pair proceeded to rape the woman - a woman who was unable to give consent - why Evans own brother watched via the hotel window.

This isn't some romantic tryst that the girl then regretted.

If you're going to defend a rapist, at least arm yourself with the facts first.
Click to expand...

:lol:

'Mare
 
Feed the Monster said:
Joe public

In fact if you have legal experience you can't sit on a jury (although that rule may have recently changed - can't be assed to check).
Click to expand...

I did jury service last year and two of the jury team of 30 people were serving policemen and one of the team was a solicitor.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top