Ched Evans wins appeal

[Childrenofthestones]

Sorry I can't link but it's on the BBC site.

I'm going to write to the attorney general regardless of the outcome of this trial. I totally fail to see how that evidence justified a retrial.

What it amounts to is "she's a right slag, she's had enthusiastic sex before, therefore how can it be possible to rape her?"

Legal discussions are happening now. No further trial action till tomorrow morning.

Me too Felas.

What does anyone expect the Attorney General to do? We have an independent judiciary which quashed the first conviction. The CPS (for which the A-G is responsible) asked for a retrial and got it. Now it is in the hands of the jury.

There was no avenue of appeal from the first conviction being quashed and if the verdict is not guilty there will be no avenue of appeal from that verdict.

Yes - the attorney general won't have any power.

The jury system is what it is, and hopefully this jury will see the bullshit for what it is. His defence really are scraping the barrel with what they've produced. (Having said that, a man was acquired recently when his defence was that he accidentally fell and put his penis in the victim, so I don't hold out much hope...)

What is wrong is that an appeal court quashed the conviction in the first place. The fact that a rape victim has had a sex life, and has enthusiastically consented to some other men, is not sufficient evidence to case doubt on a rape conviction imo, and should never have been considered relevant.

^ was acquitted recently

I do wonder how the defence teams who do this sort of stuff sleep at night. It's one thing using the evidence available to mount a reasonable defence of your client. But smearing the victim and promoting rape myths like this is quite another. I think his team are scum to even consider doing it.

I know altitude. I was watching National Treasure last night. It's about a famous TV personality being prosecuted for historic sex crimes. In the trial last night they destroyed the women. It was horrific to watch as a drama, never mind in real life.

The judge this time was Harold Shipman's defence QC. I don't know much about legal stuff. I suppose, crudely, they're just doing their job. I couldn't/wouldn't do it.

Even Shipman deserved a defence. I doubt his defence involved alleging that his patients couldn't possibly have been murdered because they were promiscuous though....

Lawyers who do criminal work are on the cab-rank. They do not judge their clients; that's what the jury or the magistrates are there for. CE's counsel is a woman.

Yea I totally agree with you, WWA. I just suppose it's their job to argue the case, and if that's the case the defence wants to put across is there much they can do?

Having said that, some of the defence QC's questions seemed to hinder rather than help him, in my totally non-legal-expert view...

I thought that marble particularly her question to yesterday's closing witness - 'did you come here to tell the jury a pack of lies'

Andrew answered the question I was about to Google. So they don't get a choice on whether or not they will take a case...

I don't judge them for doing their job. It must be a tough one as you're bound to get clients who you think are twats and /or lying through their teeth. I'm sure some do have internal conflicts even if they are brutal in court.

They do not judge their clients; that's what the jury or the magistrates are there for.

No, but they have a choice as to how ethically they behave. I've outlined my experience of a defence QC in other threads, and they do not all behave well by any means.

CE's counsel is a woman.

So was my rapist's. Didn't stop her behaving in a deliberate intimidatory manner in order to undermine me in court. (Rolling eyes while no was speaking etc.) That was totally unnecessary - she could have done her job perfectly well while behaving ethically.

^ while I was speaking

Quite a lot of men who are accused of rape want a women barrister apparently. Ched Evans is not on Legal Aid and as specifically booked his barrister

Yes, they think it looks good.

It's all about having a woman on "your side". How could he possibly be a rapist? He's convinced this intelligent woman .

I thought that marble particularly her question to yesterday's closing witness - 'did you come here to tell the jury a pack of lies'

That old one ! - better for the defence to get that in, rather than the witness hear it for the first time being put in - in an aggressive manner, don't you know - from the Prosecution.

I'm not expecting them to do anything about this trial. I'm hoping they might have some influence to stop this kind of evidence being used in appeals especially as it directly goes against legal guidelines.

Sorry that was to andrew

Felas That too is a matter for the judge, case by case, within the constraints of the law as passed by Parliament. In reaching a decision the judge here had the whole statement of the witness - not just the salacious bits the papers choose to print.

Yes, and whother is responsible for advising parliament about changes to constraints etc? I would assume the attorney general