Sheebo
Well-known member
- Jul 13, 2003
- 29,319
I wasn't reffering to that case one bit there mate..?!
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Ched Evans
- Thread starter Brighton TID
- Start date
I wasn't reffering to that case one bit there mate..?!
coagulantwolf
New member
- Jun 21, 2012
- 716
Well for starters one is a rapist, the other is a rapist AND a paedophile.
Hillian1
( . ) ( . )
Ah, sorry.
I think this thread is begining to get right under my skin.
Rape is not reported in a Tornado style measurement (F1 being lowest and F5 being highest) we can only go on the Courts handing down of punishment to even try and guess what really happened.
But, to be convicted of rape it needs to be proved that Consent was not given, that to me is still the overiding factor.
The Merry Prankster
Pactum serva
If a drunk woman is deemed (by law) unable to give consent then the state of the man (drunk or sober) is irrelevant. Drink responsibly kids.
The Merry Prankster
Pactum serva
No, you miss the point. The crime here is rape. Horrific in its own, stand alone, right. There are no 'lesser' rapes. There are, of course rapes with other heinous crimes (assault, paedophilia,filming without consent, murder etc) attached. To suggest someone is somehow better (or at least less bad) because they didn't add on any other crimes to their rape is nonsense.
You are not answering the question though, does this law only apply to women? What if it's same sex couple?. I am not being awkward. Are you saying that if a man is drunk, however drunk he is deemed as giving consent?
JCL - the new kid in town
New member
- Aug 23, 2011
- 1,864
It's harder for a woman to rape a man without consent as he has to be in a certain state of arousal. In a same sex situation then I'm sure the law would apply as with a woman
The Merry Prankster
Pactum serva
I'm afraid I don't know.
Sheebo
Well-known member
- Jul 13, 2003
- 29,319
Ok so say someone gets convicted of rape when they were very intoxicated & they thought the other person was consenting but the other person either wasn't or the court deemed the accused of not having consent is the same as someone who plans a rape down a dark lane, stalks their victim for weeks so they know their routine and know they ll be in that place at that time and then commits rape is exactly the same? I don't think it is.
Again anyone who is genuinely guilty of such a crime deserves all the punishment they are given...
The Merry Prankster
Pactum serva
I guess you'd have to ask the victims but in my experience it is the act of rape that is crucial thing not the circumstances. If you've been raped you don't think how lucky you were that it was a mild raping.
Sheebo
Well-known member
- Jul 13, 2003
- 29,319
Of course... Wasn't saying quite that mate... Was more talking about the perpetrators..
The Merry Prankster
Pactum serva
My point is that we should keep the focus on the victims and the effect rape has on them not on the type of perpetrator. the reason for that, as this thread makes abundantly clear, is that if you start making perpetrator comparisons you lose sight of actual offence.
Sheebo
Well-known member
- Jul 13, 2003
- 29,319
Very good post & a very good point I'll give you that...
Nathan
Well-known member
- Jan 8, 2010
- 3,765
As guilty as the Guildford four?... 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-30093565
The Professional Footballers' Association of Ireland has come to the defence of convicted rapist and former Sheffield United footballer Ched Evans.
Evans was jailed in April 2012 for raping a 19-year-old woman in a hotel room in May 2011. He was released last month.
The association's solicitor, Stuart Gilhooly, said Evans could be innocent.
He said that while a jury convicted him of the crime, the same applied to the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six.
The Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six were initially convicted of involvement in an IRA bombing campaign that claimed several lives.
The verdicts in both cases were overturned after the ten accused spent many years in prison.
Mr Gilhooly wrote an article on the Professional Footballers' Association of Ireland website referring to Evans' crime as "alleged", despite the fact the footballer was found guilty of raping the woman in a hotel room in Rhyl, North Wales, and sentenced to five years.
The article has since been removed from the website.
The solicitor said he believed that whether Evans was guilty or innocent, the footballer deserved another chance.
'No violence'
Sheffield United allowed Evans to resume training at the club following his release from prison last month.
In his online article, Mr Gilhooly wrote: "This crime, as alleged, was at the bottom end. There was no violence and thankfully the victim has no recollection of it.
"This, I hasten to add, does not make it right, or anything close to it, but it is nonetheless a mitigating factor."
Mr Gilhooly said it was "not easy to muster up too much sympathy for Evans".
"But there is surely nothing worse than being accused of a crime which you genuinely believe you didn't commit," he said.
"The argument against that is that a jury convicted him of the crime. The same applied to the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six. They got no public sympathy either.
"Maybe he is guilty or perhaps he's innocent, none of us knows for sure. Surely, either way, he deserves a chance at redemption. Don't we all?"
His comments come in the wake of musician Paul Heaton's resignation as a patron of Sheffield United's Community Foundation over the club's decision to allow Evans to train with the club.
TV presenter Charlie Webster, sixties pop star Dave Berry and Sheffield businesswoman Lindsay Graham have all resigned as patrons of the club since Evans returned to training.
Olympic athlete Jessica Ennis-Hill asked for her name to removed from a stand at the club's Bramall Lane ground if Evans returns full-time.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-30093565
The Professional Footballers' Association of Ireland has come to the defence of convicted rapist and former Sheffield United footballer Ched Evans.
Evans was jailed in April 2012 for raping a 19-year-old woman in a hotel room in May 2011. He was released last month.
The association's solicitor, Stuart Gilhooly, said Evans could be innocent.
He said that while a jury convicted him of the crime, the same applied to the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six.
The Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six were initially convicted of involvement in an IRA bombing campaign that claimed several lives.
The verdicts in both cases were overturned after the ten accused spent many years in prison.
Mr Gilhooly wrote an article on the Professional Footballers' Association of Ireland website referring to Evans' crime as "alleged", despite the fact the footballer was found guilty of raping the woman in a hotel room in Rhyl, North Wales, and sentenced to five years.
The article has since been removed from the website.
The solicitor said he believed that whether Evans was guilty or innocent, the footballer deserved another chance.
'No violence'
Sheffield United allowed Evans to resume training at the club following his release from prison last month.
In his online article, Mr Gilhooly wrote: "This crime, as alleged, was at the bottom end. There was no violence and thankfully the victim has no recollection of it.
"This, I hasten to add, does not make it right, or anything close to it, but it is nonetheless a mitigating factor."
Mr Gilhooly said it was "not easy to muster up too much sympathy for Evans".
"But there is surely nothing worse than being accused of a crime which you genuinely believe you didn't commit," he said.
"The argument against that is that a jury convicted him of the crime. The same applied to the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six. They got no public sympathy either.
"Maybe he is guilty or perhaps he's innocent, none of us knows for sure. Surely, either way, he deserves a chance at redemption. Don't we all?"
His comments come in the wake of musician Paul Heaton's resignation as a patron of Sheffield United's Community Foundation over the club's decision to allow Evans to train with the club.
TV presenter Charlie Webster, sixties pop star Dave Berry and Sheffield businesswoman Lindsay Graham have all resigned as patrons of the club since Evans returned to training.
Olympic athlete Jessica Ennis-Hill asked for her name to removed from a stand at the club's Bramall Lane ground if Evans returns full-time.
The Large One
Who's Next?
More scary stuff reported in the Telegraph (my italics)...
Ched Evans, the convicted rapist and former Sheffield United striker, has been defended by the Professional Footballers' Association of Ireland, which has said he could be innocent and even compared him with the miscarriages of justice suffered by the Guildford Four and Birmingham Six.
Stuart Gilhooly, the PFAI's solicitor, wrote an article on the union's website claiming that Evans deserves another chance, and that his crime was "at the bottom end" of the scale where rape is involved.
He also called into question the legal system that convicted Evans of the rape of a 19-year-old woman at a hotel, for which the player was sentenced to five years.
"The argument against [the idea that Evans might be innocent] is that a jury convicted him of the crime," Gilhooly said, before comparing him to the wrongful imprisonment of supposed Irish terrorists in the 1970s. "That’s right. And the same applied to the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six. They got no public sympathy either.
"There is little point in trying to dissect the legal niceties of this very complex issue but suffice to say that Ched Evans has a very arguable case that he is the victim of a miscarriage of justice," Gilhooly continued.
"If having sex with a drunk woman is rape then thousands of men are guilty of rape every day. The simple point is that degrees of intoxication are a very difficult concept for young men to grapple with when they themselves have had plenty to drink."
On the day Housemartins singer Paul Heaton resigned his post as a patron at Sheffield United, Gilhooly hit out at Jessica Ennis-Hill among those who have taken a stand against the prospect of Evans returning to the club to resurrect his career. Olympic heptathlon champion Ennis-Hill said last week she may want her name taken down from the stand named in her honour at Bramall Lane should the disgraced forward be re-employed.
"From Jessica Ennis-Hill to [TV presenter] Charlie Webster and pretty much every media commentator who has waded into this mire, the horses most of these pundits have mounted are so high, they’ll need a parachute to get down," Gilhooly said. "When sanctimony takes over, there is rarely any real room for serious debate."
Ched Evans, the convicted rapist and former Sheffield United striker, has been defended by the Professional Footballers' Association of Ireland, which has said he could be innocent and even compared him with the miscarriages of justice suffered by the Guildford Four and Birmingham Six.
Stuart Gilhooly, the PFAI's solicitor, wrote an article on the union's website claiming that Evans deserves another chance, and that his crime was "at the bottom end" of the scale where rape is involved.
He also called into question the legal system that convicted Evans of the rape of a 19-year-old woman at a hotel, for which the player was sentenced to five years.
"The argument against [the idea that Evans might be innocent] is that a jury convicted him of the crime," Gilhooly said, before comparing him to the wrongful imprisonment of supposed Irish terrorists in the 1970s. "That’s right. And the same applied to the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six. They got no public sympathy either.
"There is little point in trying to dissect the legal niceties of this very complex issue but suffice to say that Ched Evans has a very arguable case that he is the victim of a miscarriage of justice," Gilhooly continued.
"If having sex with a drunk woman is rape then thousands of men are guilty of rape every day. The simple point is that degrees of intoxication are a very difficult concept for young men to grapple with when they themselves have had plenty to drink."
On the day Housemartins singer Paul Heaton resigned his post as a patron at Sheffield United, Gilhooly hit out at Jessica Ennis-Hill among those who have taken a stand against the prospect of Evans returning to the club to resurrect his career. Olympic heptathlon champion Ennis-Hill said last week she may want her name taken down from the stand named in her honour at Bramall Lane should the disgraced forward be re-employed.
"From Jessica Ennis-Hill to [TV presenter] Charlie Webster and pretty much every media commentator who has waded into this mire, the horses most of these pundits have mounted are so high, they’ll need a parachute to get down," Gilhooly said. "When sanctimony takes over, there is rarely any real room for serious debate."
Scunner
Active member
I have taken an interest in this case recently, but I thought that I would appraise myself of as much impartial knowledge as I could.
I think that the feeling within the Justice system on this particular case go beyond the material facts of the acts of both the complainant and the accused on the night.
It is without question that there exists 'lurking doubt' in this case - R v Cooper (1969) - to my mind, and it is for that reason and that reason alone that the Lord Chief Justice 'LCJ' Mr Justice Mitting and Mr Justice Griffith Williams denied leave to appeal on 6th November 2012.
My rationale is that the evidence presented does not pass the necessary criminal conviction test of 'beyond reasonable doubt'. It may well be that that were this case presented to a civil court where the test is 'on the balance of probabilities' the jury would find in the complainant's (girl's) favour. However this is a criminal case and the former should apply.
Emotion doesn't come into this. Too many people on this thread have been emotional about it. The psychological effect on the victim, or the victim's state of mind moving forward and terms like 'justice for rape victims' are irrelevant. The only time a criminal court assesses these matters is during sentencing, not during the trial itself.
The only fact that matters is 'did Ched Evans penetrate the complainant with her consent or not?'. My analysis of the grounds to refuse appeal - the pdf of which from the Royal Courts of Justice is easily found on the internet - by the Lord Chief Justice leaves me uncertain because of one or two facts. These centre around the direction the trial Judge gave the Jury. In his summing up he did not use the phrase 'drunken consent is still consent' and the LCJ did not think that this omission by the Judge in his summing up was enough ground to appeal because they thought he had adequately covered this problem in his direction to the Jury.
I disagree after reading the summing up as it is ambiguous and could be seen as illogical when applied to the acquitted defendant Macdonald. It makes the case a matter of opinion and I think that as a result the LCJ really does not want this to go to appeal because Evans will be acquitted.
I think that Ched Evans, on the balance of probability, did have unlawful sexual intercourse with the complainant. I think that the LCJ thinks that too and he understands that there would be a public outcry if Evans were acquitted. It will also have a deep and lasting impact on criminal precedent, and this is where it goes somewhat deeper.
The upshot of an Evans acquittal may have repercussions on the way drunken or intoxicated rape is interpreted in law. This is because the case is both high profile and highly nuanced in its interpretation. It may even lead to a review about the way rape is defined in circumstances where alcohol is involved and it would certainly put off hundreds of women that are raped every year from coming forward.
From a legal perspective it is very interesting, and I expect that there is more to this than meets the eye and Evans will certainly have highly powered legal teams behind him as they will see the weakness inherent in the verdict and go for it unreservedly.
Like I said, this isn't about emotional judgement or even what I think, it is about fact alone. And on this basis I think the conviction is unsafe because even a cursory examination of the evidence means that no one could be certain ‘beyond reasonable doubt’.
Remember that the leave to appeal ruling and denial (there has only been one as far as I can tell) does not make a judgement on the case itself or the decision of the jury, simply whether there were any procedural inconsistencies that give ground to appeal or compelling new evidence. So the denial of the leave to appeal is not necessarily a validation of the jury’s decision.
It is now with the Criminal Case Review Commission, not the LCJ, to assess and the outcome will be hotly anticipated both here and in the Inns of Court.
I think that the feeling within the Justice system on this particular case go beyond the material facts of the acts of both the complainant and the accused on the night.
It is without question that there exists 'lurking doubt' in this case - R v Cooper (1969) - to my mind, and it is for that reason and that reason alone that the Lord Chief Justice 'LCJ' Mr Justice Mitting and Mr Justice Griffith Williams denied leave to appeal on 6th November 2012.
My rationale is that the evidence presented does not pass the necessary criminal conviction test of 'beyond reasonable doubt'. It may well be that that were this case presented to a civil court where the test is 'on the balance of probabilities' the jury would find in the complainant's (girl's) favour. However this is a criminal case and the former should apply.
Emotion doesn't come into this. Too many people on this thread have been emotional about it. The psychological effect on the victim, or the victim's state of mind moving forward and terms like 'justice for rape victims' are irrelevant. The only time a criminal court assesses these matters is during sentencing, not during the trial itself.
The only fact that matters is 'did Ched Evans penetrate the complainant with her consent or not?'. My analysis of the grounds to refuse appeal - the pdf of which from the Royal Courts of Justice is easily found on the internet - by the Lord Chief Justice leaves me uncertain because of one or two facts. These centre around the direction the trial Judge gave the Jury. In his summing up he did not use the phrase 'drunken consent is still consent' and the LCJ did not think that this omission by the Judge in his summing up was enough ground to appeal because they thought he had adequately covered this problem in his direction to the Jury.
I disagree after reading the summing up as it is ambiguous and could be seen as illogical when applied to the acquitted defendant Macdonald. It makes the case a matter of opinion and I think that as a result the LCJ really does not want this to go to appeal because Evans will be acquitted.
I think that Ched Evans, on the balance of probability, did have unlawful sexual intercourse with the complainant. I think that the LCJ thinks that too and he understands that there would be a public outcry if Evans were acquitted. It will also have a deep and lasting impact on criminal precedent, and this is where it goes somewhat deeper.
The upshot of an Evans acquittal may have repercussions on the way drunken or intoxicated rape is interpreted in law. This is because the case is both high profile and highly nuanced in its interpretation. It may even lead to a review about the way rape is defined in circumstances where alcohol is involved and it would certainly put off hundreds of women that are raped every year from coming forward.
From a legal perspective it is very interesting, and I expect that there is more to this than meets the eye and Evans will certainly have highly powered legal teams behind him as they will see the weakness inherent in the verdict and go for it unreservedly.
Like I said, this isn't about emotional judgement or even what I think, it is about fact alone. And on this basis I think the conviction is unsafe because even a cursory examination of the evidence means that no one could be certain ‘beyond reasonable doubt’.
Remember that the leave to appeal ruling and denial (there has only been one as far as I can tell) does not make a judgement on the case itself or the decision of the jury, simply whether there were any procedural inconsistencies that give ground to appeal or compelling new evidence. So the denial of the leave to appeal is not necessarily a validation of the jury’s decision.
It is now with the Criminal Case Review Commission, not the LCJ, to assess and the outcome will be hotly anticipated both here and in the Inns of Court.
Last edited:
drew
Drew
Wish I could have put it like that.
Despite all the vitriol I have taken from some on this thread, I have never stated that I believe Evans is innocent, just that I struggle to believe the evidence (what I have seen) is enough to convince me that he is guilty beyond reasonable doubt (or to be 'sure' he did it as some refer to as the level the evidence should establish). No doubt some will state that I wasn't in court so didn't hear all the evidence and they would be right, but surely the two Judges would have made reference to evidence that was relevant when considering the application for leave to appeal!
I think this is worth a read...
https://www.crimeline.info/case/r-v-ched-evans-chedwyn-evans
extract...
"A complainant consents if, and only if, she has the freedom and capacity to make a choice, and she exercised that choice to agree to sexual intercourse."
He then addressed the implications and consequences of the evidence that the complainant had been drinking and had possibly taken cocaine. He said:
"There are two ways in which drink and/or drugs can affect an individual who is intoxicated. First, it can remove inhibitions. A person may do things when intoxicated which she would not do, or be less likely to do if sober. Secondly, she may consume so much alcohol and/or drugs that it affects her state of awareness. So you need to reach a conclusion upon what was the complainant's state of intoxication, such as you may find it to be. Was she just disinhibited, or had what she had taken removed her capacity to exercise a choice?"
He went on to explain: "A woman clearly does not have the capacity to make a choice if she is completely unconscious through the effects of drink and drugs, but there are various stages of consciousness, from being wide awake to dim awareness of reality. In a state of dim and drunken awareness you may, or may not, be in a condition to make choices. So you will need to consider the evidence of the complainant's state and decide these two questions: was she in a condition in which she was capable of making any choice one way or another? If you are sure that she was not, then she did not consent. If, on the other hand, you conclude that she chose to agree to sexual intercourse, or may have done, then you must find the defendants not guilty."
He went on to direct the jury about the requirement relating to the individual defendant's belief about whether or not the complainant was consenting. He gave clear directions to the jury about how they should approach that issue in the context of the alcohol which had been consumed by the complainant.
The court said that those directions to the jury amply encapsulated the concept of the drunken consent amounting to consent. The judge did not use those express words; there was no obligation on him to do so. On occasions when those words are used or the issue is put in that way, it causes umbrage and indeed distress. But that he covered the concept of capacity and choice in his directions to the jury seemed to be clear. The contrary was not arguable.
They continued; it was true that the judge did not direct the jury that the complainant had no memory of these events and that they should not take that into account in deciding whether or not she consented to what was happening. But that did not need to be said. That was not the issue in the case. If the judge had indeed suggested that the absence of memory was of possible relevance to the question, he would have had something to say about it. The issue of memory, it will be remembered, was addressed in the course of the trial on the basis that it went to the credibility of the complainant. The defence expert said, in effect, that it was open to question whether she was telling the truth when she asserted that she had lost her memory. In those circumstances the absence of any specific direction on the subject by the judge did not seem to amount to an arguable basis for allowing the appeal.
https://www.crimeline.info/case/r-v-ched-evans-chedwyn-evans
extract...
"A complainant consents if, and only if, she has the freedom and capacity to make a choice, and she exercised that choice to agree to sexual intercourse."
He then addressed the implications and consequences of the evidence that the complainant had been drinking and had possibly taken cocaine. He said:
"There are two ways in which drink and/or drugs can affect an individual who is intoxicated. First, it can remove inhibitions. A person may do things when intoxicated which she would not do, or be less likely to do if sober. Secondly, she may consume so much alcohol and/or drugs that it affects her state of awareness. So you need to reach a conclusion upon what was the complainant's state of intoxication, such as you may find it to be. Was she just disinhibited, or had what she had taken removed her capacity to exercise a choice?"
He went on to explain: "A woman clearly does not have the capacity to make a choice if she is completely unconscious through the effects of drink and drugs, but there are various stages of consciousness, from being wide awake to dim awareness of reality. In a state of dim and drunken awareness you may, or may not, be in a condition to make choices. So you will need to consider the evidence of the complainant's state and decide these two questions: was she in a condition in which she was capable of making any choice one way or another? If you are sure that she was not, then she did not consent. If, on the other hand, you conclude that she chose to agree to sexual intercourse, or may have done, then you must find the defendants not guilty."
He went on to direct the jury about the requirement relating to the individual defendant's belief about whether or not the complainant was consenting. He gave clear directions to the jury about how they should approach that issue in the context of the alcohol which had been consumed by the complainant.
The court said that those directions to the jury amply encapsulated the concept of the drunken consent amounting to consent. The judge did not use those express words; there was no obligation on him to do so. On occasions when those words are used or the issue is put in that way, it causes umbrage and indeed distress. But that he covered the concept of capacity and choice in his directions to the jury seemed to be clear. The contrary was not arguable.
They continued; it was true that the judge did not direct the jury that the complainant had no memory of these events and that they should not take that into account in deciding whether or not she consented to what was happening. But that did not need to be said. That was not the issue in the case. If the judge had indeed suggested that the absence of memory was of possible relevance to the question, he would have had something to say about it. The issue of memory, it will be remembered, was addressed in the course of the trial on the basis that it went to the credibility of the complainant. The defence expert said, in effect, that it was open to question whether she was telling the truth when she asserted that she had lost her memory. In those circumstances the absence of any specific direction on the subject by the judge did not seem to amount to an arguable basis for allowing the appeal.
Scunner
Active member
Which forms part of what I read. And this summing up begs the question: how can it be interpreted fairly when applied to both defendants? I don't think it can.
Surely this is why McDonald was acquitted and Evans found guilty. The jury believed consent may have been given because McDonald met the woman outside of the hotel and therefore McDonald could argue consent was being given. However, the jury did not accept consent had been given in the case of Evans whose arrival much later and having not met the woman outside of the hotel room bought into question whether Evans could reasonably argue that he was proceeding with consent.
I believe that in California they are examining a change in law that would mean that before sex adults would have to ensure they had prior consent.