EalingBlue2
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 7 Aug 2007
- Messages
- 5,571
Classic - but you know he's a lovely lad someone met him in a pub and he bought them a beer
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Ched Evans - serious injury
- Thread starter york away to this!
- Start date
BlueBlood81
Well-Known Member
Classic - but you know he's a lovely lad someone met him in a pub and he bought them a beer
Yeh but... he's still a ****, and only got him self to blame for the situation he's in , tbh I'm not to arsed about him I've only made a couple of comments on a thread after all that's why i'm signed in
I wonder if he is found innocent if clubs will still sign him. By law he'd be cleared but the problem with rape allegations/convictions is the stigma never goes away. Some people will always remain convinced of his guilt and I don't know if clubs could be arsed with the bullshit that would come with him signing for them. No matter the result of his appeal I think his only option will be to piss off abroad and play there.
W
W
worsleyweb
Guest
I wonder if he is found innocent if clubs will still sign him. By law he'd be cleared but the problem with rape allegations/convictions is the stigma never goes away. Some people will always remain convinced of his guilt and I don't know if clubs could be arsed with the bullshit that would come with him signing for them. No matter the result of his appeal I think his only option will be to piss off abroad and play there.
Oldham if he gets off tomo.
Which is why the current rape laws need to change - anonymity for accused until proven guilty, and stricter punishment / disclosure of identity of the alleged victim if the claims are found to be false.I wonder if he is found innocent if clubs will still sign him. By law he'd be cleared but the problem with rape allegations/convictions is the stigma never goes away. Some people will always remain convinced of his guilt and I don't know if clubs could be arsed with the bullshit that would come with him signing for them. No matter the result of his appeal I think his only option will be to piss off abroad and play there.
Which is why the current rape laws need to change - anonymity for accused until proven guilty, and stricter punishment / disclosure of identity of the alleged victim if the claims are found to be false.
I agree. I've known men whose lives have been ruined because of a false rape allegation.
EalingBlue2
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 7 Aug 2007
- Messages
- 5,571
I would guess Any club will trade off the downside publicity against the footballing upside and decide accordinglyI wonder if he is found innocent if clubs will still sign him. By law he'd be cleared but the problem with rape allegations/convictions is the stigma never goes away. Some people will always remain convinced of his guilt and I don't know if clubs could be arsed with the bullshit that would come with him signing for them. No matter the result of his appeal I think his only option will be to piss off abroad and play there.
People expecting that Ched's name will be cleared today and he'll be straight into employment with another football club might care to consider:
1. Even though the hearing ends today, the court might reserve its judgment, i.e. not issue its decision on the day of the hearing. So we could have to wait up to, say, another four weeks. (FWIW, in one of the comments to a blog article I link to in the next bullet point below, the blog author - an experienced practitioner - says he thinks a reserved judgment to be likely).
2. If the conviction is quashed, the prosecution can accept that or ask the court to order a retrial. I understand that, ordinarily, there wouldn't be a retrial in a case where there'd be no effect on whether the appellant spends any more time in prison; after all, he's now been release from jail on licence. However, on the UK Criminal Law Blog, an experienced criminal barrister thinks there could well be a retrial in a case such as this owing to its high profile: http://ukcriminallawblog.com/ched-evans-appeal-to-be-heard-on-22nd-march/. Now, this commentator may be wrong, as even highly qualified professionals can be when offering their views in this way, but there must be at least some possibility of a retrial. And if Evans is subject to a retrial, then I doubt any club would touch him until that had taken place, so presumably for a few more months at least.
3. Even if Evans wins his appeal, whether football clubs continue to regard him as a toxic proposition surely depends on the circumstances. I suspect there'd be a big difference between the court quashing the conviction on what might be regarded as a technicality where the court decides it can't be sure he's guilty beyond reasonable doubt, on the one hand, and new evidence proving conclusively that he's innocent, on the other.
He may also suffer further reputational damage if it's subsequently alleged that he or people acting on behalf harrassed the claimant in the gathering of evidence for the appeal. I know for a fact that there are media outlets who've investigated this. Whether they'll choose to pursue the story once the legal proceedings are over, only time will tell.
Of course, if his conviction is quashed and there's no retrial, then he'll no longer be regarded as being on release on licence, which means he could pursue opportunities abroad now if no one in the UK wants him anyway (rather than having to wait until April 2017, when he'll no longer be on licence, which is the position if his conviction stands). So this would be a substantive benefit to Evans even if British clubs were to continue to shun him.
4. I see some references to entitlement to compensation. This isn't quite the formality people seem to think. Under section 133(1ZA) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, he's eligible for compensation only if "the new or newly discovered fact [which was the ground for the conviction to be quashed] shows beyond reasonable doubt that the person did not commit the offence": http://hmctsformfinder.justice.gov.uk/mojas/guidance/#jump-6.
We'll see whether that requirement is met in due course, but media reports so far about the kind of evidence Evans was likely to put forward suggest that the challenge to his conviction was about introducing reasonable doubt rather than conclusively demonstrating innocence. If so, he won't get compensation. For an example of a high profile case where someone initially convicted remains officially not guilty after an appeal and a couple of retrials yet was refused compensation, see here: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-10922487
I suppose there's technically a chance that he may be able to sue the police or CPS for misfeasance in public office, but that's a very hard thing to do sucecssfully.
5. I see some suggestions that people who initially condemned Evans should apologise for doing so if his conviction is overturned. Why should they? The whole point of this process is that if the conviction no longer stands, it will have been overturned on the basis that there's new evidence that couldn't have been available for the original trial - so how could anyone have taken it into account back then? Or should everyone refrain from commenting on any jury verdict in the criminal court system just in case other evidence later emerges?
6. In any event, let's wait for the Court of Appeal to rule and see what they say. Only at that point will it really be possible to offer an informed perspective on the case.
1. Even though the hearing ends today, the court might reserve its judgment, i.e. not issue its decision on the day of the hearing. So we could have to wait up to, say, another four weeks. (FWIW, in one of the comments to a blog article I link to in the next bullet point below, the blog author - an experienced practitioner - says he thinks a reserved judgment to be likely).
2. If the conviction is quashed, the prosecution can accept that or ask the court to order a retrial. I understand that, ordinarily, there wouldn't be a retrial in a case where there'd be no effect on whether the appellant spends any more time in prison; after all, he's now been release from jail on licence. However, on the UK Criminal Law Blog, an experienced criminal barrister thinks there could well be a retrial in a case such as this owing to its high profile: http://ukcriminallawblog.com/ched-evans-appeal-to-be-heard-on-22nd-march/. Now, this commentator may be wrong, as even highly qualified professionals can be when offering their views in this way, but there must be at least some possibility of a retrial. And if Evans is subject to a retrial, then I doubt any club would touch him until that had taken place, so presumably for a few more months at least.
3. Even if Evans wins his appeal, whether football clubs continue to regard him as a toxic proposition surely depends on the circumstances. I suspect there'd be a big difference between the court quashing the conviction on what might be regarded as a technicality where the court decides it can't be sure he's guilty beyond reasonable doubt, on the one hand, and new evidence proving conclusively that he's innocent, on the other.
He may also suffer further reputational damage if it's subsequently alleged that he or people acting on behalf harrassed the claimant in the gathering of evidence for the appeal. I know for a fact that there are media outlets who've investigated this. Whether they'll choose to pursue the story once the legal proceedings are over, only time will tell.
Of course, if his conviction is quashed and there's no retrial, then he'll no longer be regarded as being on release on licence, which means he could pursue opportunities abroad now if no one in the UK wants him anyway (rather than having to wait until April 2017, when he'll no longer be on licence, which is the position if his conviction stands). So this would be a substantive benefit to Evans even if British clubs were to continue to shun him.
4. I see some references to entitlement to compensation. This isn't quite the formality people seem to think. Under section 133(1ZA) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, he's eligible for compensation only if "the new or newly discovered fact [which was the ground for the conviction to be quashed] shows beyond reasonable doubt that the person did not commit the offence": http://hmctsformfinder.justice.gov.uk/mojas/guidance/#jump-6.
We'll see whether that requirement is met in due course, but media reports so far about the kind of evidence Evans was likely to put forward suggest that the challenge to his conviction was about introducing reasonable doubt rather than conclusively demonstrating innocence. If so, he won't get compensation. For an example of a high profile case where someone initially convicted remains officially not guilty after an appeal and a couple of retrials yet was refused compensation, see here: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-10922487
I suppose there's technically a chance that he may be able to sue the police or CPS for misfeasance in public office, but that's a very hard thing to do sucecssfully.
5. I see some suggestions that people who initially condemned Evans should apologise for doing so if his conviction is overturned. Why should they? The whole point of this process is that if the conviction no longer stands, it will have been overturned on the basis that there's new evidence that couldn't have been available for the original trial - so how could anyone have taken it into account back then? Or should everyone refrain from commenting on any jury verdict in the criminal court system just in case other evidence later emerges?
6. In any event, let's wait for the Court of Appeal to rule and see what they say. Only at that point will it really be possible to offer an informed perspective on the case.
EalingBlue2
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 7 Aug 2007
- Messages
- 5,571
Which is why the current rape laws need to change - anonymity for accused until proven guilty, and stricter punishment / disclosure of identity of the alleged victim if the claims are found to be false.
Agree on the former but that can only be a tool until trial as it is imperative in any justice system that it is open to the public and subject to media scrutiny. I do though think until trial there is a case for this. This of course would make no difference to Ched as he is a convicted rapist so unless the law was changes me so all criminals remain anonymous it wouldn't.
In this case there is not going to be any finding that the allegation was false unless the victim has come out on video and admitted it. So it will be on a technicality, a wrongly held piece of evidence , a matter of law or possibly something that came up since. If so again le changes would make no difference at all.
The big issue is even in cases where the verdict is not guilty it is very rarely found that the allegations are false it is nearly always because of reasonable doubt so again this would make no difference.
EalingBlue2
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 7 Aug 2007
- Messages
- 5,571
People expecting that Ched's name will be cleared today and he'll be straight into employment with another football club might care to consider:
1. Even though the hearing ends today, the court might reserve its judgment, i.e. not issue its decision on the day of the hearing. So we could have to wait up to, say, another four weeks. (FWIW, in one of the comments to a blog article I link to in the next bullet point below, the blog author - an experienced practitioner - says he thinks a reserved judgment to be likely).
2. If the conviction is quashed, the prosecution can accept that or ask the court to order a retrial. I understand that, ordinarily, there wouldn't be a retrial in a case where there'd be no effect on whether the appellant spends any more time in prison; after all, he's now been release from jail on licence. However, on the UK Criminal Law Blog, an experienced criminal barrister thinks there could well be a retrial in a case such as this owing to its high profile: http://ukcriminallawblog.com/ched-evans-appeal-to-be-heard-on-22nd-march/. Now, this commentator may be wrong, as even highly qualified professionals can be when offering their views in this way, but there must be at least some possibility of a retrial. And if Evans is subject to a retrial, then I doubt any club would touch him until that had taken place, so presumably for a few more months at least.
3. Even if Evans wins his appeal, whether football clubs continue to regard him as a toxic proposition surely depends on the circumstances. I suspect there'd be a big difference between the court quashing the conviction on what might be regarded as a technicality where the court decides it can't be sure he's guilty beyond reasonable doubt, on the one hand, and new evidence proving conclusively that he's innocent, on the other.
He may also suffer further reputational damage if it's subsequently alleged that he or people acting on behalf harrassed the claimant in the gathering of evidence for the appeal. I know for a fact that there are media outlets who've investigated this. Whether they'll choose to pursue the story once the legal proceedings are over, only time will tell.
Of course, if his conviction is quashed and there's no retrial, then he'll no longer be regarded as being on release on licence, which means he could pursue opportunities abroad now if no one in the UK wants him anyway (rather than having to wait until April 2017, when he'll no longer be on licence, which is the position if his conviction stands). So this would be a substantive benefit to Evans even if British clubs were to continue to shun him.
4. I see some references to entitlement to compensation. This isn't quite the formality people seem to think. Under section 133(1ZA) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, he's eligible for compensation only if "the new or newly discovered fact [which was the ground for the conviction to be quashed] shows beyond reasonable doubt that the person did not commit the offence": http://hmctsformfinder.justice.gov.uk/mojas/guidance/#jump-6.
We'll see whether that requirement is met in due course, but media reports so far about the kind of evidence Evans was likely to put forward suggest that the challenge to his conviction was about introducing reasonable doubt rather than conclusively demonstrating innocence. If so, he won't get compensation. For an example of a high profile case where someone initially convicted remains officially not guilty after an appeal and a couple of retrials yet was refused compensation, see here: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-10922487
I suppose there's technically a chance that he may be able to sue the police or CPS for misfeasance in public office, but that's a very hard thing to do sucecssfully.
5. I see some suggestions that people who initially condemned Evans should apologise for doing so if his conviction is overturned. Why should they? The whole point of this process is that if the conviction no longer stands, it will have been overturned on the basis that there's new evidence that couldn't have been available for the original trial - so how could anyone have taken it into account back then? Or should everyone refrain from commenting on any jury verdict in the criminal court system just in case other evidence later emerges?
6. In any event, let's wait for the Court of Appeal to rule and see what they say. Only at that point will it really be possible to offer an informed perspective on the case.
Thanks for what is a comprehensive and well written addition to this thread.
I am not sure where the assumption comes that not guilty always means innocent, I have always thought of them as very different things. Many an or organised criminal has got off on very good use of a good lawyer or on intimidation of witnesses etc which never made them innocent