The return of Ched Evans

[Harrowby Hall]

Do you remember Ched Evans?

The footballer was convicted of rape. He has apparently appealed his conviction and the conviction has been overturned.

Can someone find the original thread?

[Nearly Sane]

It has been referred but not as yet overturned as far as I can see.

[jeremyp]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-34441348

[wigginhall]

Presumably, they are saying that there is new information which could lead to a quash.  In other words, 'there is new material not considered by the jury'.   I guess this will raise his hopes. 

[Harrowby Hall]

It has been referred but not as yet overturned as far as I can see.

Forgive me - my hearing aid isn't working. I confused "referred" with "reversed".

I misheard the newsreader of the 2.00pm Radio 4 bulletin.

i apologise.

[Harrowby Hall]

Presumably, they are saying that there is new information which could lead to a quash.  In other words, 'there is new material not considered by the jury'.   I guess this will raise his hopes.

Apparently the direction that the case should go to Appeal was made by the Criminal Cases Review Commission. It appears that there may be new evidence and this carries a strong likelihood that had it been presented at the original trial the outcome may have been different. Cases forwarded from the CCRC stand a very much greater chance of being overturned than routine appeals.

[Follower of Jesus]

One wonders if all those who called for his virtual castration when he tried to start working again will apologise to a man who always maintained his innocence (if he is found innocent of course)

[jeremyp]

One wonders if all those who called for his virtual castration when he tried to start working again will apologise to a man who always maintained his innocence (if he is found innocent of course)

I have been thinking about that. At the time he had been found guilty of rape and refused leave to appeal. All the people that objected to his playing football again did so in good faith. If his conviction is quashed, and any "body" is to blame, it is the British justice system. There will no doubt be compensation (again, I emphasise, if his conviction is quashed).

[Hope]

If his conviction is quashed, and any "body" is to blame, it is the British justice system. There will no doubt be compensation (again, I emphasise, if his conviction is quashed).

We don't know what this 'new evidence' is yet, but I wonder whether the British justice system is necessarily the only 'body' to blame?  Should the 'new evidence' be that the 'victim' has given false information, shouldn't they be just as much to blame?

[BashfulAnthony]

I don't think it appropriate to discuss a case which is yet to come to court again.

[Hope]

I don't think it appropriate to discuss a case which is yet to come to court again.

Whilst I agree to an extent, BA, I believe that there is a principle or set of principles that we can debate beyond the specific case.

[BashfulAnthony]

I don't think it appropriate to discuss a case which is yet to come to court again.

Whilst I agree to an extent, BA, I believe that there is a principle or set of principles that we can debate beyond the specific case.

What particular principles, Hope?

[Hope]

What particular principles, Hope?

How evidence is collected, recorded, scrutinised.  As I said, we don't know what the 'new evidence' in this specific case is, but we do know from past cases in general that forensic evidence can become contaminated thus resulting in misleading findings; police officers can accidentally or even intentionally misreport or leave out vital information; even witnesses can give misleading or incomplete evidence.

[BashfulAnthony]

What particular principles, Hope?

How evidence is collected, recorded, scrutinised.  As I said, we don't know what the 'new evidence' in this specific case is, but we do know from past cases in general that forensic evidence can become contaminated thus resulting in misleading findings; police officers can accidentally or even intentionally misreport or leave out vital information; even witnesses can give misleading or incomplete evidence.

I think there are many cases when accusations made are false, or grossly exaggerated, and it is often very difficult for a person to prove he didn't do something.

[Harrowby Hall]

I don't think it appropriate to discuss a case which is yet to come to court again.

I am not sure that sub judice rules apply to appeal cases. In trials at first instance there is always the possibility that potential jurors may be influenced by press reports etc. Appeal cases, however, are tried only by senior judges who - presumably - are sufficiently experienced to be able to discount external influences.

Anyway, the details of the original trial are now in the public domain and are open for discussion. You can't put the genie back in the bottle.

Or is your objection simply a moral objection?

[BashfulAnthony]

I don't think it appropriate to discuss a case which is yet to come to court again.

I am not sure that

sub judice

rules apply to appeal cases. In trials at first instance there is always the possibility that potential jurors may be influenced by press reports etc. Appeal cases, however, are tried only by senior judges who - presumably - are sufficiently experienced to be able to discount external influences.

Anyway, the details of the original trial are now in the public domain and are open for discussion. You can't put the genie back in the bottle.

Or is your objection simply a moral objection?

I simply don't think it a good idea to even loosely fall foul of legal correctness.

[jeremyp]

We don't know what this 'new evidence' is yet, but I wonder whether the British justice system is necessarily the only 'body' to blame?  Should the 'new evidence' be that the 'victim' has given false information, shouldn't they be just as much to blame?

The justice system is meant to find out the truth. If it failed to do so, it failed, no matter what the reason. If the alleged victim lied, the trial should have made that apparent and it didn't.

It's long been recognised that the justice system can fail people, that's why there is an appeals system.

[Harrowby Hall]

The return of Ched Evans

His re-trial has started this morning.

[floo]

Moderator link edited for length

http://tinyurl.com/jpdlcr6

[Brownie]

I just read that report and it seems the new evidence is for prosecution as his original conviction in 2012 was later quashed.

[Harrowby Hall]

I just read that report and it seems the new evidence is for prosecution as his original conviction in 2012 was later quashed.

That doesn't sound right. If there had been new evidence for the prosecution, why should the original conviction be quashed? He would have been guilty anyway and a new trial would have been a waste of resources.

"Quashing" followed by a retrial implies that there was a problem with the first trial and that another opportunity should be given to test the evidence. All that has been presented at the new trial is the prosecution case, which seems similar to that presented at the first trial.  The new evidence, presumably from the defence, has yet to be presented.

Don't forget - there is a presumption of innocence. It is only in exceptional circumstances that you can be prosecuted for the same crime twice.

[Nearly Sane]

Details of the quashing of the conviction below. Note this is a new jury trial so will be sub judice


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-36099522

[Brownie]

There must be exceptional circumstances - new evidence - for this to be brought back to court. 

It's all quite unpleasant.  I hope the truth finally comes out this time.  When the original conviction was quashed it was a relief in a way, believing that justice had been done.  It was done, based on what was known at that time.  Now I can't help thinking there wouldn't be a second trial unless the newly uncovered evidence was pretty strong.

He's still innocent until proved guilty of course so I'm not making any judgements, thank goodness that is up to others.  It's a terrible time for everyone concerned and my resolve is to think of it no more until it is settled.

[Hope]

There must be exceptional circumstances - new evidence - for this to be brought back to court. 

It's all quite unpleasant.  I hope the truth finally comes out this time.  When the original conviction was quashed it was a relief in a way, believing that justice had been done.  It was done, based on what was known at that time.  Now I can't help thinking there wouldn't be a second trial unless the newly uncovered evidence was pretty strong.

He's still innocent until proved guilty of course so I'm not making any judgements, thank goodness that is up to others.  It's a terrible time for everyone concerned and my resolve is to think of it no more until it is settled.

The whole point of a quashing is that new evidence has surfaced - and therefore the whole needs to be (re)-tested in court.

[jeremyp]

There must be exceptional circumstances - new evidence - for this to be brought back to court. 

It's all quite unpleasant.  I hope the truth finally comes out this time.  When the original conviction was quashed it was a relief in a way, believing that justice had been done.  It was done, based on what was known at that time.  Now I can't help thinking there wouldn't be a second trial unless the newly uncovered evidence was pretty strong.

He's still innocent until proved guilty of course so I'm not making any judgements, thank goodness that is up to others.  It's a terrible time for everyone concerned and my resolve is to think of it no more until it is settled.

This new trial was ordered when the original conviction was quashed (on Ched Evans' appeal), so it's nothing to do with new evidence that has been found since the appeal, it was always going to happen.