Ched Evans verdict

Thanks - I'll sign once it goes live.

petition.parliament.uk/petitions/169433/moderation-info

There is one, but it hasn't gone live yet. I'll grab the link......

Vera Baird QC helped draft the original legislation and she's concerned about it.

Is there a petition yet to get that law changed? I would like to sign one, and will create one if it doesn't exist already (although won't get a chance until this evening).

"must be an enthusiastic participant and can't have been raped"

And given that her previous behaviour has been taken into account, can I now turn up outside CE's house and film him having sex with his GF? He liked being filmed before? Can I lie my way into his hotel room the next time he's in one with his GF and penentrate him with something, cos he liked threesomes last time?

But is the argument that she was have sex "doggie style" with the first man and then CE continued that and she supposedly said go harder or whatever? She might in that case have been having consensual (in as much as you can 2 times over the drink drive limit) and not even have known CE had "taken his turn" if she wasn't looking at him, he wasn't introduced and didn't speak to her and it was dark.
Quite apart from the fact that I just don't believe the positions and "fuck me harder" thing at all.

The Secret Barrister reckons it's all okay, the law was adhered to, these genuinely were "exceptional circumstances" meriting disclosure of the victim's past sexual history, and women shouldn't worry because it won't happen to other victims. Helena Kennedy in contrast is worried. Two professional lawyers, different opinions on whether a worrying precedent has been set.

My feeling is (as Merrymouse has so beautifully explained) that the bar on what counts as "exceptional circumstances" has been set worrying low - that a common sexual position, a commonly used phrase were assumed to be so significant that it could not be mere chance that a woman had used them (or been alleged to have used them) on two or three separate occasions, therefore the situations must have been similar in all respects (including consent).

Thank you children for your secret barrister link. A very good article that explained it very clearly.
And thank you so much to Merrymouse, for taking the time to write a long post explaining it so clearly for non law people, like me. Cheers.

YY merry. My feelings exactly.

Oblomov I think the idea is that although many would think a phrase like "Fuck me harder" is pretty banal, it could apparently also be considered so distinctive that if two men claim that a woman uttered the phrase (or similar, anything including 'harder' will do), it can't possibly be a coincidence, they must be telling the truth. Being 'confident' in bed and having sex 'doggie style' are also identifying characteristics. No two (or three) men could possibly describe a woman having sex like this unless they had witnessed her having sex like this.

Somebody who says 'Fuck me harder' and has sex 'doggie style' must be an enthusiastic participant and can't have been raped. In these apparently exceptional circumstances, evidence from previous sexual partners can be used.

You might worry that Ched's description of the event had already been made public by the time these valiant guardian's of the truth came forward with this detail. You could argue that coming forward after all other legal avenues had been exhausted was a bit too much of a coincidence, certainly given the 'energetic' way that CE's friends, relatives and internet supporters attempted to defend him and that it appears that these witnesses were approached by CE's supporters even before they were interviewed by private investigators. To say nothing of the £50,000 reward on offer.

However, without proof that they were lying the Appeals court felt they had to allow the new evidence. Apparently 'Chinny reckon' isn't a legal term.

What we mustn't do is worry that anybody could use this kind of defence again except in very exceptional circumstances.

Oblomov16

Your questions are answered here

thesecretbarrister.com/2016/10/14/10-myths-busted-about-the-ched-evans-case/

Could someone clarify something for me please. I have read many of the last few pages of quotes but I'm still a bit confused.

The telegraph has an article, where it says that we have now gone back 30 years, in law. Because in 1999 law said someone previous sexual history couldn't be used in cases.

But in the CE case it was. Because his solicitors did what? Used a loophole? To show that she had done similar? I.e. Had sex and then forgotten. Previously?

So they started examining her previous sexual history.

But I thought that couldn't be done? Since the law change of 1999.

Please could someone explain how/why his solicitors were allowed to do this?

Thanks Lass.

There wouldn't seem to be any grounds for that given two appeals failed and they were pursuing a particular line of defence about strangers.

"apparently thinking of suing Brabners, his former solicitors."

Lass, what might be his grounds for is?

I'm not a criminal lawyer but basically they would have had to have conducted it in a way no reasonably competent solicitor would have i e they don't have to be the best there is snatching victory against all the odds, just reasonably competent.

In case anyone here didn't see, a go fund me page has been set up for her...

www.gofundme.com/help-ched-evans-complainant-2uj5pv8

And woe betide anyone who does abuse her, they run the risk of being fined a whole £624.

I take the "we do not expect this" to mean "from our Judge (Ivory) Towers, we would frown upon anyone who repeats that behaviour" rather than "well that's unlikely to happen again"

Well the last paragraph has been shot to shit - we do not expect a repetition of the appalling treatment of the victim on the Internet.

Are you shitting me? They actually said this? Is "We" the appeal court judges? They didn't expect this!?

The ONE thing they could have bet their life on was that she'd be hounded, abused, threatened and outed again on social media. How could they be so stupid?

I think it's pissing into the wind and hoping it doesn't blow on your shoes, TBH, merry. It's a meaningless platitude.

The article doesn't say the money was paid it says it was offered.
Do you have another source?

Yes, slow hand clap indeed - 'we do not expect'. I can't tell whether they honestly 'don't expect' or whether they think this statement will somehow control behaviour - who is it directed at?

Yes the loophole should be removed: it's extraordinary that it still exists.

Well the last paragraph has been shot to shit - we do not expect a repetition of the appalling treatment of the victim on the Internet.

Apparently when the original trial took place no lawyer thought to ask the sex preferences witness about her sexual preferences, so he didn't say anything. He thought he was there to testify that she wasn't acting like a rape victim and was probably greedy.

Years later, when questioned by CE's defence team, he managed to remember.