Ched Evans - Updated NOT GUILTY

[Vindec]

Is it something to do with the fact that has he has already been tried for the same charge he can't give evidence?
Don't see it myself, if I was the prosecution I'd be labouring that fact.

Perhaps he doesn't want to get sucked back in and leave himself open to further proceedings.

[EadosEados]

He's been found not guilty - nothing to fear now

[Vindec]

He's been found not guilty - nothing to fear now

The double jeopardy law ceased to exist more than 10 years ago.

[ccfc_is_my_life]

The double jeopardy law ceased to exist more than 10 years ago.

However, if he testified backing Evans claims fully, then it would be far more difficult for Evans to have be found guilty thus making it unlikely he'd face further charges?

[the leader]

The retrial was ordered for one simple reason, that the defence produced new witnesses.

Appeal court judges had to assess if that evidence exonerated the defendant ( ie no retrial ) or if the new *evidence* may influence the decision ( retrial ). It's not their remit to determine the full accuracy and validity of that evidence other than on a cursory level.

As seen from the court case, the new witnesses had the following characteristics.

1) Neither were present on the actual night in question at the Premier Inn.
2) Both attempt to question the reputation of the witness rather than deal with events that night.
3) Both were aware of the "Justice for Ched" website which offered 50k for any evidence that could clear Ched.
4) Both came forward after that offer was made.

Ched's legal team gambled that there would be no re-trial. Indeed, their statement after the appeal ruling had to be revised. Now the new evidence has been openly challenged in court, it's not exactly that credible.

Donaldson hasn't testified - the other person there that night. That's an interesting thing nobody seems to want to question.

Nothing has materially changed between trials other than character assassination of the alleged victim.

Theres a huge flaw in your theory.

It seems inconceivable to me that high court judges would not also have come the same conclusion as you were the above the case in point. High Court judges could not fail to cast more than a little reasonable doubt as to the veracity of new witnesses under these circumstances and as far as i am aware this has not even been a line of questioning from the prosecution.

What you have posted is alluding to a crystal clear case of 'paid witnesses'.

There is a much wider concern here. Based on what youve posted then anyone convicted of a crime who has the financial means can essentially get a retrial by the same route. The legal precedent would surely be very dangerous indeed.

If youre right, then Evans is doomed. However, i cannot see that our legal system would be so naive.

[ccfc_is_my_life]

The court of appeal aren't going to necessarily look in the same way as prosecutors though.

They'd be looking to see if the evidence *may* affect the result. if new evidence conclusively showed Ched getting consent, there would be no retrial. If the evidence was incredibly laughable, there would be no retrial.

The prosecution have shown new witnesses were aware of a financial offer on reward for evidence clearing Ched and indeed the "Justice for Ched" website. That instantly brings the evidence into question - especially given the evidence doesn't pertain to the allegation Ched is facing. Neither were present at the Premier Inn on the night in question.

The court of appeal rightly (imo) determined this new evidence needed to be presented to a jury and subject to cross-examination from the prosecution. I doubt it would set a legal precedent per se as you suggest - it would be a case by case, evidence by evidence based judgement.

[the leader]

Deeply flawed in your opinion.

The simple answer to your point is different juries. Without the juries coming out and explicitly stating their reasoning, your question is moot. Chances are the original jury felt there was enough evidence consent was given for Donaldson; not enough evidence to show Ched had gained consent or attempted to. That's supposition without knowing the jury reasoning.

Given the quality of the new evidence presented, I can see why Ched's team didn't want a second trial.

Personally, i think it is this that lies at the heart of Evans' defence. The woman herself says she remembers nothing after the pizza place other than being in a hotel lobby. She then wakes up the next morning. It is this recollection, or lack thereof, that could see Ched Evans aquitted. The original jury cannot reasonably take the same evidence to free one and imprison another?
If she doesnt remember, they are taking Donaldsons word against her, but her word against ched Evans.
Any reasonable person can surely see that either both men are innocent, or both guilty - based on the evidence presented. Again, and ive touched on this before, the judge did not direct the jury correctly regarding consent when drunk. He should have told the jury that a woman can now be classed as capable of giving consent under the influence. Why he did not is critical because if the jury are not directed thus, any with doubt as to the womans 'unconscious state' could still in their own mind convict Evans because the woman was inarguably drunk.

[ccfc_is_my_life]

Personally, i think it is this that lies at the heart of Evans' defence. The woman herself says she remembers nothing after the pizza place other than being in a hotel lobby. She then wakes up the next morning. It is this recollection, or lack thereof, that could see Ched Evans aquitted. The original jury cannot reasonably take the same evidence to free one and imprison another?
If she doesnt remember, they are taking Donaldsons word against her, but her word against ched Evans.
Any reasonable person can surely see that either both men are innocent, or both guilty - based on the evidence presented. Again, and ive touched on this before, the judge did not direct the jury correctly regarding consent when drunk. He should have told the jury that a woman can now be classed as capable of giving consent under the influence. Why he did not is critical because if the jury are not directed thus, any with doubt as to the womans 'unconscious state' could still in their own mind convict Evans because the woman was inarguably drunk.

The issue could also be as to if Ched attempted to get consent. "It wasn't the time to have a conversation" would tend to indicate Evans almost certainly wasn't worried about getting consent.

[tigerbaybluebird]

He's going to get guilty.

[OurManFlint II]

Does he go back to prison if so?

I'm not following it in the press but i am enjoying the lawyers, barristers and experts on here. sordid affair. Can't imagine what is going through his wife's head having to listen to all this and still standing by her man, strange decision.

[blue matt]

Does he go back to prison if so?

I'm not following it in the press but i am enjoying the lawyers, barristers and experts on here. sordid affair. Can't imagine what is going through his wife's head having to listen to all this and still standing by her man, strange decision.

so would I be, but it all falls down at the point that all these experts on here cannot get McDonald's name right and keep on calling him Donaldsons ffs

[Charlie]

so would I be, but it all falls down at the point that all these experts on here cannot get McDonald's name right and keep on calling him Donaldsons ffs

A little petty that.
For the most part i think this has been a well argued and fascinating thread, from whichever side of the verdict you come from.

[Dr Lecter]

A little petty that.
For the most part i think this has been a well argued and fascinating thread, from whichever side of the verdict you come from.

Agreed.

Good arguments on both sides.

[TruBlue]

Does he go back to prison if so?

I'm not following it in the press but i am enjoying the lawyers, barristers and experts on here. sordid affair. Can't imagine what is going through his wife's head having to listen to all this and still standing by her man, strange decision.

Pretty certain I read somewhere that he can't go back to prison.

You don't have to be a solicitor to think this whole case is bit strange.

[qccfc]

Pretty certain I read somewhere that he can't go back to prison.

You don't have to be a solicitor to think this whole case is bit strange.

He's served the time, as seen from when he was released and tried to resume his football career, before launching the appeal.

Having the charge quashed would make his football career go a little better. I imagine Chesterfield would be under pressure to let him go if he is found guilty again.

[OurManFlint II]

Pretty certain I read somewhere that he can't go back to prison.

You don't have to be a solicitor to think this whole case is bit strange.

Okay, cheers.

[ccfc_is_my_life]

Pretty certain I read somewhere that he can't go back to prison.

You don't have to be a solicitor to think this whole case is bit strange.

He'd not go back to prison if sentence less than or equal to time already served. If judge sentenced a longer term, believe he'd have to serve the difference.

[Elysium]

He'd not go back to prison if sentence less than or equal to time already served. If judge sentenced a longer term, believe he'd have to serve the difference.

http://ukcriminallawblog.com/ched-ev...trial-ordered/

"One point to note though is that if he is found guilty at the re-trial, then he cannot get a higher sentence than at the first trial (5 years imprisonment).

Given that he has served the custodial part of his sentence, there is therefore no question of him being sent back to prison."

[ccfc_is_my_life]

http://ukcriminallawblog.com/ched-ev...trial-ordered/

"One point to note though is that if he is found guilty at the re-trial, then he cannot get a higher sentence than at the first trial (5 years imprisonment).

Given that he has served the custodial part of his sentence, there is therefore no question of him being sent back to prison."

Intersting. What would happen, for example, if sentencing tariffs changed? Would the same still apply?

[Elysium]

Intersting. What would happen, for example, if sentencing tariffs changed? Would the same still apply?

No idea, though I'm fairly sure the tariff has not changed.

[ccfc_is_my_life]

One point, now I've got McDonald's name stuck in my head ;)

Under oath, Ched Evans stated that Clayton McDONALD asked the girl if he could join in. Evans stated he didn't speak to the woman ( "It wasn't the time for conversation" ).

Therefore, the ONLY way Evans would have had consent would have been if the woman agreed with McDONALD, giving consent to him for Evans to join in.

So why on earth did the defence NOT get McDONALD on the stand to confirm that? McDONALD confirms consent as given to him for Evans to join in, then the case is over.

[TruBlue]

Intersting. What would happen, for example, if sentencing tariffs changed? Would the same still apply?

You can only be sentenced to what the laws of the land were at the time of the crime.

[splott parker]

You can only be sentenced to what the laws of the land were at the time of the crime.

Jesus, I hope they don't nab me for that murder in 1958!!!!

[jamieccfc]

I just can't see the evidence that clearly makes ched guilty there is to much doubt surrounding this case

[itkman]

I just can't see the evidence that clearly makes ched guilty there is to much doubt surrounding this case

Are you a member of the jury?