Ched Evans verdict

it is already pretty much forbidden, at least on paper, to introduce the victim's sexual history. it can only happen in very restricted circumstances

Except research shows it is commonly used. Applications are made in a quarter of cases. A third of applications are granted.

Buttercups - They are wrong. The judgemrnt may be a summary but it sets out the reasons for the decision very clearly. There is no way that the basis for the decision would have been completely omitted from the judgement.

When he got his conviction quashed, I hoped and prayed that the 'new evidence' wouldn't be trashing the victim - but I was not a bit surprised that it was. That's all it was. They might as well have said 'she's clearly a slut that goes out drinking and has casual sex'. If the victim had been a 16 year virgin, they would have convicted.

CE's own testimony shows he acted in a predatory way that night, and it was quite clear to me that he didn't give even a cursory thought as to whether she could or was consenting. CE's and CM's own accounts on this supposed 'asking if he could join in' differed in their police interviews iirc - an important piece of information also kept from this jury.

The whole thing was a travesty - the jury were denied the evidence of the one person who was in that room with them. They even asked to see it. That is not justice, or fair.

Also, what Merry said. Why don't you think a published official summary would contain the salient facts?

The same legal commentators who said there must have been more than "she likes it from behind" to quash the original conviction?

Buttercup. The official appeal judgement explains what reasoning the judges made to allow the appeal in the first place. There is nothing else. It is very clear. They felt that the evidence of the two other men had to be heard and so they had to quash the conviction, knowing that the CPS would bring a retrial.

Yes it did come down to the description of the victim using the words "fuck me harder" and directing the sex with the other two men and putting herself in the doggy style position. They had a legal argument about whether it met the criteria of not being able to be explainable as a coincidence. They decided it couldn't be and so allowed the evidence via section 41.3 of the relevant Act as an exception to the ban on sexual history evidence.

There was nothing else. That was the "fresh evidence".

But a summary is not an adequate summary if it doesn't make sense without more details.

There was another thread yesterday with some posters from the legal thread (lawyers/solicitors), who said they expect the evidence given was much more detailed than that given in the media. That it would have took a lot more than liking it from behind to get a not guilty on appeal. Especially given 7 of the jury were apparently women.

Just because we don't know the details doesn't mean there aren't any. Only the summary has been released

In fairness, I used to knock around with footballers in my younger years (old school friends and their mates; they made it, I didn't). My experience is that professional footballers, on average, tend to be a bit smarter and more circumspect than other men of the same age.

At the end of the day, they're professional athletes in a super-competitive field, and if you go out on the piss and/or act like a twunt every weekend, then by your mid-twenties, that tends to catch up with you in one way or another. The ones who make a career out of the game tend to have their heads screwed on (obviously there's exceptions)

dancingbear I went out with a friend around 15 years ago, we met some footballers (I have no idea who they are, I just know which team they played for) and I believe we were both given a date rape drug. A friend of an ex took me home and made sure I got in the house, but I remember stumbling up the stairs and everything starting to move very slowly, like I was there but not really.

I was lucky, and looking back she was raped - at the time I thought because she had gone back to his hotel she was happy to have sex, the next day she said she couldn't remember. It seems very similar to this case, I wonder how prevalent date rape is in the footballing community and how often it isn't reported. It's easier to cheat on your wife/girlfriend if the other person doesn't remember?

Last, with apologies for the bombardment, does anyone think it's a bit of a coincidence that the victim was apparently affected by something resembling a date rape drug, following which she was raped? Is no-one else at all wondering this.

For the avoidance of doubt I'm not for a moment suggesting that either McDonald or CE were responsible for he being drugged. It's just a musing

Also, CE said he didn't speak to her, if he didn't ask her if it was alright how in anyway could she have consented?

because McDonald said, 'can my mate have a go' and she nodded, apparently. Even if that happened, it doesn't make it not rape, if she was so out of it on drink/date rape drugs that she was unfit to consent.

womenwithaltitude, it is already pretty much forbidden, at least on paper, to introduce the victim's sexual history. it can only happen in very restricted circumstances .

For example let's say the defendant's story is that "she consented - in fact she initiated things by tying me up with shoelaces. Then she smacked my arse with a wet otter". It then comes to light that the victim had a predilection for that conduct, and there was no way the defendant could've known this. Obviously that lends weight to his story, and I can see why that information should be admissible. It's a very specific exclusion, and I gather it's rarely used.

However it's seems ridiculous that this should've been allowed in the CE trial. the fact the victim sometimes liked sex from behind, and sometimes expressed a wish for that sex to be more vigorous, seems utterly commonplace and mundane. I'm not a criminal lawyer but it seems to me that this should carry no probative value at all.

It looks and smells to me that CE's lawyers have used this route, via a spineless appeal court judge, to allow evidence of the victim's promiscuity in via the back door. This, for me, is where the fuck up, travesty and scandal lie. The original conviction was sound.

I can see how the jury in the second trial felt there was reasonable doubt as to what really happened, but that was because the whole thing had turned into a fucking circus by that point, with bribes and all sorts of shit flying around.

might be valid in this case would have been if there was a recording of the woman asking for, or clearly agreeing to, CE joining them to have sex

I thought two guys were outside the window, filming. CE admitted he put a finger to his lips as a sign to be quiet. I wonder what happened to that film.

Also, CE said he didn't speak to her, if he didn't ask her if it was alright how in anyway could she have consented?

WomanwithAltitude
Of course, it's a ridiculous notion, I agree with you for all the reasons you stated.
But the state does not protect females. Neither does the media or our wider culture.
I sometimes dream (unreasonably) of a world where girls care conditioned to be fierce.
I am so angry on behalf of all the girls and women who are abused in this way.

furious not curious

Good, i thought i was right

Least i can argue with that now, i was fairly positive but not 100%

saw a bit if the wright show yesterday and it referred to the case but some of the phone in people were convinced that her history was relevant because his was...when it obviously wasnt

Official MN pretty powerful of course.

Maybe. I think engaging with existing respected groups/resources probably more useful. Ideally at least one of them is thinking about a campaign already.

Thanks. I noted the petition. I'll scan their websites to see what's happening. I have a lot of time on my hands and feel more curious as time goes by about this. Would really like to get behind a legislation review.

The VAWG cross government work is good but not enough money predictably. But its not so long ago, eg, that there were terrible govt victim blaming campaigns - which have a lot to answer for. I was having a Google to see just what was around at the time I had a bad experience and it makes me mad. Some recent examples too.

Given the legislation - which at least needs clarification even in the form of secondary legislation/practice guidance - and the terrible culture I am very much feeling the rage.

It would take government action for the legislation to change, so maybe a a campaign where people wrote to their MPs would be a good idea? We could draft a template letter.

There is a petition to ban the use of sexual history in trials, but it's not live yet:

petition.parliament.uk/petitions/169433

In terms of organisations that work on this issue, Rights of Women, Rape Crisis and the End Violence Against Women Coalition are the ones I'm aware of.

I agree that a specific campaign is needed regarding the use of sexual history but also the treatment of victims in court.

I'm not part of or linked to any women's groups or political groups (although feeling very much like I should be). I wonder if any other posters can point me in the direction of any planned action/campaigning?

I saw talk about funding civil cases but it feels like the costs would be very high in an already underfunded sector.

Are there any legal people or those who work in VAWG area who know what the position is re a legislation change? And what the discussions were last time this legislation was reviewed (under Vera Bird?)

To make it the norm for a person who is not consenting to the act being committed upon them to administer great harm upon their assialant.

It would just mean that a victim that didn't administer great harm (which most women can't do against a man who is physically larger and stronger than them) was considered to be a liar.

And where does it leave child victims, elderly victims, disabled victims etc?

Self defence is already legal. But most women are not in a position to harm their rapist as much as he can harm them. If survival means compliance, that is the best strategy.

Not that I'm against rapists being harmed, but it's not realistic.

I wonder if we ought to teach and train women and girls to be more aggressive, to cause physical harm to men who assualt or rape them.
To make it the norm for a person who is not consenting to the act being committed upon them to administer great harm upon their assialant.
I expect this is a ridiculous notion for many reasonas but we can't depend upon the law to keep W&G safe.

I also wonder if this sets a worrying precedent. So if a man who had participated in a threesome like this *ist in a darkened hotel room was at some later point in time the victim of a sexual assault in similar circumstances would his previous "exploits" be fair game for the defence in order to discredit his rape claim? I mean, we all know how he likes a bit of 2 on 1/ drunken action. It is all very disturbing.