Ched Evans Cleared - I Still Believe Her

[ChampagneCommunist]

Just seen this in the BBC website. His poor, poor victim

Cheque!

I'm fairly sure it's an offence to film someone having sex without their consent. There are various other potential charges available to the CPS regarding that night.

Filming without consent is voyeurism. In this case it is my understanding that they did not manage to film successfully. They did, however, see what was going on which would still be voyeurism. Assuming no previous convictions they would receive a community order. It is unlikely that they would have gone on the sex offenders register for this offence.

Convictions for voyeurism remain on the DBS record forever. However, it is up to individual employers to decide whether or not the conviction is relevant and should bar the individual from working in a particular post. My understanding is that voyeurism against a child is an automatic bar from teaching but voyeurism against an adult is not.

So if filming a person having sex in a private bedroom without their consent is an offence, then people helping to set that up and / or join in with that would also be committing an offence? Isn't that perhaps a thing called conspiracy?

Possibly but it may be hard to get a conviction and, as with attempted voyeurism, they would have almost certainly have received a community order and not gone on the sex offenders register.

Not placing CM's statement into evidence - if that's what happened - what's that all about

Since the prosecution again went for the line that the victim was too drunk to consent McDonald's statement did not help them. Indeed, since he maintains that she was not that drunk, it would be more likely to hinder than help. I'm not sure what significance you attach to McDonald's statement. I may have missed something but my understanding is that it was largely consistent with Evans' statement.

Even if both witnesses were 100% telling the truth, having sex 'doggy style' and saying 'go harder'

The Court of Appeal judgement does not lay out the similarities in full. My understanding is that they went significantly beyond that. Indeed, I doubt a jury would be persuaded that someone wanting sex doggy style and asking their partner to go harder was in any way unusual enough to be convincing as evidence of consent.

i believe her. I hope she reads this.

Of course I believe her. How could you not? Nothing's changed, no New info. He's just found a loophole.

I can only assume that 'you had to be there' to understand why the jury accepted the evidence of the two witnesses and why they thought the descriptions and words used were identifying enough to cast doubt on the conviction.

I would agree with that. The jury know exactly how similar the witnesses description of consensual sex with the victim was to Evans' description - I'm guessing that is a lot more detailed than the rather sketchy information published in the press. They have seen the witnesses and had a chance to judge how well they stood up to both examination and cross examination. They have heard everything the prosecution threw at the witnesses to try and undermine them. They came to a judgement that these witnesses were sufficiently credible to cast reasonable doubt. I wasn't there and I have no idea whether or not I would have agreed with them. I am certainly not going to arrive at a conclusion based on the information in the press.

I still don't understand how this case is so unusual that that evidence of the victim's past sex life would be unlikely to be used in a similar way in other cases

The law has been like this for a long time but this particular provision has hardly ever been used. I doubt that this case will change that. For it to be used:

• the accused must allege that sex was consensual
• one or more witnesses must be available who have had consensual sex with the victim and whose description of their encounters closely matches the description given by the accused
• the similarities must be too great to be coincidental

That final point means that the encounter must be unusual in some way. If it simply involves positions and words that are widely used it won't be enough. I think the reason you say the hurdle the defence team had to jump seems low is that you are judging it on the information that is in the public domain. If that really is all there was I would agree with you. However, given that it has convinced the CCRC, the Court of Appeal and a jury I think there must be a lot more too it than the press have published.

The law has been like this for a long time but this particular provision has hardly ever been used.

Really? 2006 research showes that section 41 applications are made in a quarter of cases, and a third of those applications were granted.

. If it simply involves positions and words that are widely used it won't be enough

prh47,

The thing that was significant to me about CM's statement was whether he did or didn't say or agree that he said to reception that the young woman was 'sick' as he left (whilst CE would have been penetrating her sexually) - 'keep an eye' etc.

If anyone has a link to that I'd be grateful.

Sorry the mobile site's rubbish tonight and I've written and lost this post so many times...

^ pressed post too soon!

If it simply involves positions and words that are widely used it won't be enough.

Except in this case that wasn't true was it? Those positions and words are widely used. Yet it was enough for CE's to be allowed to conduct a disgraceful public evisceration of his victim.

The 'look after her, she's sick' comment was widely reported during the first trial, but I don't know who said it (e.g metro.co.uk/2012/04/11/football-duo-ched-evans-and-clayton-mcdonald-raped-drunk-teenage-girl-385413/).

For whatever reason, it wasn't part of the testimony this time around.

Of course I believe her. How could you not? Nothing's changed, no New info. He's just found a loophole.

Can I again remind people that all she has ever alleged is that she cannot recall what happened that night. She has never accused anyone of rape. The new evidence suggests she is prone to loss of memory after consuming relatively small amounts of alcohol. The expert evidence that has been given suggests that you would not normally expect someone to lose their memory after consuming the amount of alcohol she consumed.

Evans has not found a loophole. Lack of memory is not evidence of lack of consent. Given the line they took, the prosecution had to prove she was so drunk that she did not have the capacity to consent and that Evans did not reasonably believe that she was not too drunk to consent. The jury clearly took the view that the prosecution had failed to prove this beyond reasonable doubt.

Prh47 have you actually read the appeal court judgement?

If not, I suggest you do (it's online) as it is clear that what has been reported publicly really is all there was in terms of fresh evidence.

Well as Datun said earlier, the witnesses could have been contaminated by contact with the Evans clan and of course there was the huge reward.

Datun: Yes, I agree re the papers. I just wish that the witness's relationship with the family was reported more. And how he changed his story. And who the hell js Jordan Davies? The court papers said he was the one who 'found' the second witness. Isn't he a reality TV star ? Is it the same one ?

Yes, who IS this person?

I need to re-read these posts when I can give them my full attention - it's complex. (And hoping it will lessen my outrage).

Here's the judgement: www.crimeline.info/case/r-v-ched-evans-chedwyn-evans-1

Is it likely that they would leave the real reasons for the judgement out of the appeal court judgement?

No. Quite the opposite.

section 41 applications are made in a quarter of cases, and a third of those applications were granted

Section 41 applications are not usually made under this particular part of Section 41. Applications are normally either related to a relevant issue other than consent or where the prosecution has itself introduced evidence about the victim's sexual behaviour. Apologies if I was not sufficiently clear.

Except in this case that wasn't true was it?

If all the evidence has been published in the press then I would agree. However, I think it is almost certainly the case that there was considerably more evidence than has appeared in the press. The Court of Appeal judges are not fools and they usually favour the prosecution unless there were clear legal flaws in the trial (e.g. evidence being admitted that should have been excluded or the judge's summing up being incorrect on a point of law).

But before I do : it sounds to me like they ALL come from the same small town, they all seem to know each other. They must have TRAWLED that village to find hostile witnesses and that's all they could come up with.

Prh47 - read the bloody judgement.

You are talking out of your arse, and it's downright rude and offensive

I am very very confused about the allegation that the witnesses were paid.

How can that not be a perversion of the course of justice?

Surely they weren't paid? Surely that would be outright illegal?

No, the Court of Appeal judges are not fools which is why the published full judgement is so ... unsatisfactory.

Prh47 have you actually read the appeal court judgement?

Yes I have. The judgement concentrates on the particular points of similarity adduced by the defence in their argument before the Court. That does not mean these were the only points of similarity or even that these have been set out in full. The hearing took two full days. A 16 page judgement is only a summary.

They deny that they were paid or tempted to add to their testimony by the money in any way at all....

And apparently offering a bribe reward is allowed. Even emailing a key prosecution witness dangling the prospect of 50k if they 'remember something new' is allowed.