Search results

Acuteness should read 'a witness'. Apologies.

No, that is not the law. A defendant's good character can be referred to and in this case I have no doubt that Evans' team will have made huge noises about his hitherto good character. However, the good character of a complainant/victim cannot be referred to. I know not whether the victim in...

Of course those two actions don't but the jury, of twelve people who didn't know Evans or the victim, decided, unanimously, that he is a rapist. Why would they do that if the case was not proven to the requisite standard? Rape, as everyone knows, is notoriously difficult to prove so how, if...

I'm not sure why having perfectly healthy disagreement about an interesting subject makes us 'mongs'?

I'm not confusing it at all. Although beyond reasonable doubt and sure, mean the same thing, judges in criminal cases are advised by their Crown Court Bench Book to direct a jury that for the Crown to prove their case they have to satisfy the jury so that they are sure. Judges are also warned in...

Drew, a previous post did set out the law on consent. You ask how can she be fit to consent to one but not the other but that is plainly not the test. It maybe, as is so often the case with rape allegations, that the jury decided that she consented to neither but that McDonald's belief in her...

The only way to appeal a conviction is to show it is unsafe, that is the test. The court of appeal then decide, if they have ruled the conviction to be unsafe, whether he is to stand trial. Any issue, as marginal as these tweets, would never lead to a ruling that he shouldn't be tried again. He...

Read the website. They were uncovered five months before the trial.

Read it........er......... All these tweets were tweeted by the complainant between 8 October 2011 and 15 November 2011, approximately 5 months after Ched and Clayton McDonald had been charged with rape and approximately 5 months before Ched was convicted and Clayton acquitted. The fire...

Particularly when it doesn't even make the point you're trying to achieve. The reference to 'after conviction' relates to those who tweeted the victim's name. Read it again.

Read on....

Taken from his website.....'All these tweets were tweeted by the complainant between 8 October 2011 and 15 November 2011, approximately 5 months after Ched and Clayton McDonald had been charged with rape and approximately 5 months before Ched was convicted and Clayton acquitted'

The tweets were revealed five months before his trial not after. Why do you think the jury will not have seen them?

What does that exchange show? Even if she was discussing what she would use compensation for, does that mean she wasn't raped. The jury saw and considered this and STILL he was convicted. Does that not suggest something about the strength of the prosecution case?

....she did not get in a cab with Evans. He responded to a text from McDonald saying 'I've got a bird' and went to the hotel with two others who filmed Evans' first involvement from a viewpoint outside the bedroom window. I don't think her decision to go back in a taxi with one man, entitles...

Precisely. Evans and his entire supporters group have failed to grasp that the issue is whether his belief was reasonable. In circumstances where the victim was too intoxicated to have the capacity to make a decision, the jury rejected his version. The considerations for his co-defendant were...

Consent has two strands; either the jury believed that she did consent or they felt that McDonald had a reasonable belief in her consent. Probably taking into account that it was with him that she willingly returned to the hotel. His belief in her consent is completely different to that of Evans.

I agree. It would be an unusual defendant indeed, who apologised for his crime whilst pursuing an appeal against his conviction. However, for him, unless and until he does, the outrage about the offence and his reintegration into normal life, will be the overwhelming feeling for most people.

It might do in certain cases but in this particular example, Clayton McDonald had left the room when Evans was having sex with victim.

....but he didn't have sex with a 'consenting' stranger! The jury, who heard all of the evidence, acquitted the man with whom she returned to the hotel but convicted Evans after he turned up part way through what was going on. The difference between the two verdicts is perfectly understandable...