Ched Evans wins appeal

[Childrenofthestones]

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

The speed of the verdict makes me wonder. Is there any chance something crucial was not allowed to be reported at all by the press but was a key part of the trial.

I think she could bring a private prosecution, if sufficiently funded and supported, against the whole lot of them who planned it, maybe. But she must frazzled.

Where there is money I am sure something can be done. I just doubt the victim has the cash lying around so there would need to be money found from elsewhere.

They just did breaking news on 5 live and I shit you not, when asked what the new evidence was the reporter said:- 'two new witnesses had come forwards who had previously had sex with the woman and stated she enjoyed it'. What world do we live in we now? What can we do?

There more chance of crowd funded case against the police for wrongful prosecution than one to overturn this verdict.

Well obviously the decision must lie with the victim, but I suspect it would mean a lot to her if a lot people did something and gave her the choice.

A not guilty verdict cannot be appealed.

She could bring a civil case - the burden of proof is lower (balance of probabilities rather than beyond reasonable doubt). But would she really want to go through that?

She's testified in two rape trials already. I know frome experience how hard it is to just do it once, I can't imagine she wants to do this again.

So how long before he brings up a case against her now? (not that it should fly, as the police brought the case, from my recollection, not her)

I really am fearful what is going to happen to her now. She will be hounded and hunted by his "fans" and family.

11122aa - Trials are public, witnesses might be kept anonymous but there won't have been anything submitted as evidence that wasn't reported. No, the jury really did just give the case that little consideration.

I think a civil case is not actually possible and if it was her anyomlity would not be protected and therfore her current identity would be public knowledge.

It may have been the route to verdict that made it quick

He won't bring a case against her.

He has absolutely no grounds to bring a criminal case, and if he brought a civil case he might lose it. No, he'll be advised by people clever enough to warn him off that.

Sometimes trials do hide really personal evidence or even evidence which might affect a future trial.

A civil case is possible, but I don't think she would be anonymous.

Oh now the daily mail opens the comments section

A not guilty verdict cannot be appealed.

So even if there was new evidence surfaced in 3 months time that showed very clearly he knew she didn't consent (not saying there is btw- just hypothetical) would there still be no appeal or another trial? Not guilty means that's it?

He'll lose any civil case. It was always going to be difficult proving something 'beyond reasonable doubt' when the only witness to the alleged act is the defendant. It would be much, much harder to demonstrate on the balance of probabilities - which is the test in civil cases - to prove that he didn't rape her. He'd be an idiot (or extremely badly-advised) to try.

There isn't any reason to suppose there were any restrictions on reporting in this case beyond the usual anonymity rules.

Reporting isn't normally restricted simply because information is personal - if it was then her previous sex life wouldn't have been reported.

Do you know, I think I would happily run the risk of being sued for defamation by saying I think his own actions and admissions clearly show him to be a rapist and that I believe his victim.

I wouldn't want to get Mumsnet in trouble of course, in the babies on rockets kind of way.

So even if there was new evidence surfaced in 3 months time that showed very clearly he knew she didn't consent (not saying there is btw- just hypothetical) would there still be no appeal or another trial? Not guilty means that's it?

Basically yes. This is double-jeopardy - the state can't try the same person over and over again until it gets the result it wants. I believe there are some very oblique exclusions to the rule but I don't imagine these apply here.

Of course this begs the question as to why CE should be allowed to rerun the trial until he gets the desired outcome, based on (as far as I can see) no substantial new evidence at all.

I cannot get my head around "she had sex with other people" basically being the "new evidence." It's frightening that the bar is set so low....

pinkissimo, I think if you were to say he was a convicted rapist, that would be libellous. Practically speaking you're fine to say that you think he's a rapist.

Jen - someone can only be retried for an offence they have been acquitted of in exceptional circumstances. It's extremely unusual.

In the vast majority of cases, not guilty is the end of the line, even if it's the wrong result.

That's exactly my feeling dancingbear. I don't see that the first conviction was unsafe based on the new "evidence" presented. I am amazed the appeal succeeded.