Ched Evans

I won't be tuning in for any filth.

'Hetty Wainthropp Investigates' is all I can manage these days.

Sluffy wrote:Conviction quashed!



The court quashed Mr Evans's conviction and declared: "The appellant will be retried on the allegation of rape."

Mr Evans and former Port Vale player Clayton McDonald admitted having sex with the woman on 30 May 2011, but said it was consensual.

He's not out of the woods yet. He still faces a retrial.

wanderlust wrote:As I understand it, the conviction wasn't quashed but was deemed unsafe.
Therefore he still faces the charges - it's just that the judge ruled that his last court case wasn't up to scratch.
Therefore he still stands accused and will have to face retrial providing, as LPP mentioned, the CPS wants to go ahead - same as in any case.
As things stand, he's on a charge.

Glad the judge saw sense because going off what appeared in the public domain it did look a dubious conviction.

No lusty he isn't. His conviction was quashed, the judge stated that in those exact words. She added that the CPS has two months from today in which to indict him if they wish to do so. He is therefore a free man at this moment with no criminal record on unconditional bail pending a decision as to whether or not the Crown will charge him. 

I realise it's a small difference on paper but legally it's huge, he's now in the same position as a bloke who got nicked for say theft or burglary. He's not been charged, he is on bail while the cops investigate further then report to the CPS who decide whether or not it's worth charging him. This is why I believe this will not see a courtroom again.

How can he be released on unconditional bail if the charges are no longer in play and his conviction's been quashed?

You can't impose bail conditions if you don't have active charges in force.

Therefore, the charges must still be recorded somewhere and be valid, surely?

Breadman wrote:How can he be released on unconditional bail if the charges are no longer in play and his conviction's been quashed?

You can't impose bail conditions if you don't have active charges in force.

Therefore, the charges must still be recorded somewhere and be valid, surely?

It's similar to police bail Bread. Effectively he's been arrested on suspicion of rape but no charges have yet been filed. He's on unconditional bail (exactly as he would be if he'd never been inside) while the investigation continues and a decision about whether or not he will be formally charged is made. 

Sky sports broadcast the judge's statement in full this morning. In it she ruled the conviction was quashed and that the CPS have two months in which to indict (charge) him again should they wish to do so. If they haven't indicted him by 21st June then that's it, he won't even face a courtroom. If they do indict him he'll be formally charged at that hearing then bail conditions (if any) will be set and so will a trial date. 

At the moment he's a suspect in an alleged rape case but he's not been charged with that or any other offence yet. I realise it can be confusing because lots of people (me included until my brother explained it using short words and simple sentences) don't realise that just because you've been arrested for something doesn't mean you've been charged with the offence. They're two different steps on the criminal procedure ladder.

Thanks Pete but I already understand the difference between being nicked for something and being charged with the offence.

One follows the other once they've decided that there's enough evidence to make a case generally.

I just always assumed that when you got bailed "pending further investigation" (which is what this looks like to me), the charges went on your record with the caveat that they could be dropped at some point in the future if it was decided that there was insufficient evidence to mount a case.

Therefore, Evans would still have these charges on his record and hanging over him.

Breadman wrote:Thanks Pete but I already understand the difference between being nicked for something and being charged with the offence.

One follows the other once they've decided that there's enough evidence to make a case generally.

I just always assumed that when you got bailed "pending further investigation" (which is what this looks like to me), the charges went on your record with the caveat that they could be dropped at some point in the future if it was decided that there was insufficient evidence to mount a case.

Normally it would but there are occasions when a suspect is granted 'police bail' due to the seriousness of the allegation before he's formally charged with anything. Most often it's because of the time limit imposed on holding a suspect without the formal charges and is purely to keep the file open while investigations are ongoing. It's very common in assault and sexual assault cases for the police to use police bail as a means of ensuring said suspect doesn't use his freedom to approach either the complainants or witnesses while he's out and about. 

Technically Ched Evans is in this position. He's been arrested but there are no formal charges as yet pending further investigations into the allegations he faces. Because the nature of the allegation is a very serious matter he's been granted unconditional bail (ie police bail) rather than been released without charge and he'll have to report back to a named police station or court at a later date to be informed as to whether or not he will face formal charges. Effectively it's as if the last five years never happened. 

He could have been in the same position as now if he'd been arrested on Sunday and released on Tuesday before the deadline for questioning ran out and given police bail while they go talk to the girl and/or witnesses and review the other evidence (eg forensic if available) before they file a report with the CPS who then determine whether or not the evidence on offer is sufficient to warrant a formal charge. If they do he'll be called to court for indictment(charging) rather than 'committal' which is what happens when someone has already been charged and is being committed to Crown Court for trial. 

What I find most telling about the judge's statement this morning was the fact she said "New, admissible evidence that was not available at the original trial which would have made a conviction unsafe has been presented to this court." In other words she said he most likely would have been acquitted had it been presented five years ago. "Subsequently the conviction is hereby quashed. The Crown will have two months from today in which to indict the appellant at which time he will face a new trial." However the judge did not say the Crown has to indict him or that a trial must take place. 

That's why I am fairly sure he won't be re-tried. It might go to court so the CPS can formally say he has no case to answer or they may, just may charge him in order to allow them to ask the judge to instruct the jury to acquit him but I think that's very unlikely. Personally I think the matter will be dropped in the next two weeks or so on the grounds there isn't enough evidence to suggest a conviction could be safely attained and that because of that fact a re-trial would not be in the public interest.

He's signed for Chesterfield.

Boggersbelief wrote:He's signed for Chesterfield.

I'm amazed he's still got the requisite fitness to play professionally after such a long period out of the game.

wanderlust wrote:

Boggersbelief wrote:He's signed for Chesterfield.

I'm amazed he's still got the requisite fitness to play professionally after such a long period out of the game.

He probably doesn't but with more than seven weeks to go before the season starts he's got plenty of time to get into shape. It can't be denied he's a pretty skillful player and Chesterfield will probably feel his ability is enough to make allowances for a lack of fitness at this point. I suspect he's been doing at least some training himself so he probably isn't miles and miles away anyway.

Cleared. Just as I always maintained he should have been.

A dickhead definitely, but not a rapist.

Will the woman now be named and shamed and do a 2.5 year stint in the clink to make things right?

now that he's been found not guilty can we try and sign him please? He''s been great for Chesterfield so far.

karlypants wrote:Will the woman now be named and shamed and do a 2.5 year stint in the clink to make things right?

Not sure it's the woman's fault, the CPS decided to waste money on this ridiculous case.

However, if you drink yourself virtually unconscious you are leaving yourself wide open to bellends like Evans.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

karlypants wrote:Will the woman now be named and shamed and do a 2.5 year stint in the clink to make things right?

Not sure it's the woman's fault, the CPS decided to waste money on this ridiculous case.

However, if you drink yourself virtually unconscious you are leaving yourself wide open to bellends like Evans.

Course it's the woman's fault, she lied through her teeth

whatsgoingon wrote:Course it's the woman's fault, she lied through her teeth

You bellend, it's the CPS that decide to prosecute a case, not the victim.

A first year law student could tell this case had more holes in it than the toilet cubicle at KPs office.

i get the feeling she has been carried along by all this, she has had to put up with a lot of grief but if she has lied from the beginning then she deserves it.

Surely it's time for all people involved in rape cases to be anonymous until a verdict has been reached?

Spoiler alert!!:- Did you watch National Treasure, recently concluded on Channel 4, where the jury found the Robbie Coltrane celebrity character not guilty of rape, just as the viewers (and his wife played by Julie Walters) discovered that he was actually guilty?

The play's author clearly wanted to show how difficult it is for female victims and their barristers to secure a conviction against ruthless defence teams who shred witnesses to pieces in the witness box.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

whatsgoingon wrote:Course it's the woman's fault, she lied through her teeth

You bellend, it's the CPS that decide to prosecute a case, not the victim.

A first year law student could tell this case had more holes in it than the toilet cubicle at KPs office.

You bellend the cps gets to do fuck all without a complaint, the whole thing is the complainants fuck up the cps just compound it

you are leaving yourself wide open to bellends like Evans.

Was this intentional Nat ?