Ched Evans allowed back

[juliascurr]

www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/football-league/ched-evans-sheffield-united-striker-to-return-to-club-after-rape-sentence-despite-petition-garnering-60000-signatures-against-him-9666380.html

really bad news

There was no evidence that rape had occured at all.

Yes there was. It was Ched's testimony. He convicted himself.

she went willingly to the room with clayton and he was not convicted

because it was deemed that he could have been under the belief that he has consent. However, she didn't go to the room with Ched, he invited himself in (by lying to gain access) after receiving a text, and invited his friend & brother to watch/film it.

He then snuck off via the fire escape, and Clayton left via the doors.

The verdict, and the judge's directions have been challenged, twice, and found to be perfectly sound.

On what grounds do you base your assertion that, knowing the facts of a case, presenting them reasonably and agreeing the the rapist Evans is, in fact, a rapist makes someone sexist?

There was no evidence that she did consent.

The Jury found that, by her actions in spending time with CM and going to a room with him, he might have formed a belief that she had consented, so he was acquitted.

CE, who was a stranger to her ( - only previous interaction being stepping over her when she was collapsed drunk - and who entered the room after deceiving porter for a key (not by her invitation), and who began intercourse within a couple of minutes of entering the room - ) was found to have no reasonable way to have secured consent, and it seems he didn't even try.

That's based on his own testimony.

Actually we don't know why the jury convicted Evans but didn't convict McDonald, because the discussions the jury have are private and never released AFAIK, but what you're suggesting sounds perfectly plausible AuntieStella.

People often forget that in law, it doesn't matter if the victim consents or not, what matters is a man's belief that she consented. It's not the victim's feelings that matter in law, it's the perpetrator's. See Buffy's current thread for further discussion on this.

Bit worrying that McDonald can go ahead and have sex with her even though she is in a state of 'being unable to consent'.

And if Evan's is a rapist why isn't McDonald an accessory to rape? He invited him over.

The LCJ noted in the appeal decision that McDonald had not been charged in relation to the rape by Evans. I don't think the CPS have said why they didn't charge him.

The LCJ was also clear that she didn't consent to either of them because she was too drunk.

So McD had sex with her even though she was unable to consent?

That was the view of the court, yes.

and that's not an offence now?

What AskBasil said: "in law, it doesn't matter if the victim consents or not, what matters is a man's belief that she consented." And there must have been reasonable doubt in the jury's minds so he was acquitted.

Both things are required - that the victim did not consent and that the man did not have a reasonable belief that she consented. The Crown proved lack of consent with evidence of her state of drunkeness including eye witnesses, CCTV and an expert to talk about the effect of that level of drunkeness.

The jury believed McDonald had a reasonable belief in her consent based on the time he spent with her beforehand and their interactions, even though she didn't actually consent. The jury did not believe Evans had a reasonable belief in her consent based on his behaviour, on his own evidence.

From the victim's perspective, she was raped by two men in that two men had sex with her without her consent. However from the legal perspective, only one of them was guilty of a crime. (Although as said above, McDonald could have possibly been charged as an accessory to the rape by Evans.)

Sorry to labour the point but it's still saying McD can have sex with the 'unable to consent' woman because he spent a bit of time with her earlier.

Isn't that a green light for men to get a girl drunk, until she passes out, then crack on regardless?

Seenem

Actually not, if a woman was not consenting at the start of the evening and the man was only able to have sex with her once he's plied her with alcohol he would not have 'reasonable belief' because the very act of getting her drunk was in order to rape her.

How do we know if she was or was not consenting to sex at the start of the evening?

So if that is accurate how the hell can McD be innocent unless she consented in the room?

Which she didn't..anything else is open to interpretation therefore having 'reasonable doubt'.

seenem, it's likely that the CPS felt they had a reasonable prospect of conviction for rape wrt CM and that is why they didn't charge him with being an accessory to CE's actions.

Additionally, the evidence 'implicating' CM was the text he sent CE - thereafter, CE's actions were his own choice and I don't believe there was any evidence of a pre-agreement between them. Accessory may have been even harder to prove.

seenem anything else is open to interpretation therefore having 'reasonable doubt'.

What do you mean by that? Not sure what you're getting at.

I'm finding it difficult to understand how CM can be innocent when the Jury believed that at the time of sex she was incapable of consent.

People above have rightly said that what happened before was irrelevant therefore when they had sex she was incapable therefore he was committing rape.

There doesn't seem to be any evidence proving 'beyond reasonable doubt' that she was, in fact, incapable. Just witness testimony saying she did consent and expert testimony saying she should have been capable (unless I've missed something).