Accused rapist Ched Evans to be released from prison

[killer b]

'cause the rapist said so. It's... quite something this thread.

 

[ShakespearO]

....
The police did not dream this rape up. The woman who was raped went to them and the investigated, passed it to the cps, who in turn decided there was enough evidence to go to court where a jury who were given all the facts and opinions of both the prosecution and defence and found him guilty of rape. Yet you persist with your paranoid fantasy of poor men being set up by the justice system and have decided that people on here have behaved in a similar way and could face being victimised.
She was raped...he is a rapist ... end of story

The woman did not go to the police to claim a rape (or sexual assault). She went to report a lost / stolen handbag (she had left it in the chippy) and of having her drinks spiked (blood tests showed no such drugs in her system and in any case no one suggests she had been drinking with the two men).

She has never claimed she was raped, because she maintains that she cannot remember anything about the incident. It was the cops who set the rape investigation in motion before even speaking to her or to the men.

 

[free spirit]

who alleged she said yes?

why wasn't that refuted?

the precident you're claiming this sets relies entirely on believing that she did say yes and her consent was overridden by the court.

well go have a word with the courts, as this is what happened in court.

the judges summing up makes it clear that the key issue here was whether she was too drunk to legally consent, not whether she actually consented.

 

[toggle]

'cause the rapist said so. It's... quite something this thread.

it's about time that the 'she liked it' bullshit as a defence against rape gets taken apart

 

[killer b]

blood tests showed no such drugs in her system

apart from the most common drug used to spike people with, of course.

 

[toggle]

well go have a word with the courts, as this is what happened in court.

the judges summing up makes it clear that the key issue here was whether she was too drunk to consent, not whether she actually consented.

so why are you trying to claim that this sets a precident that allows a woman's consent to be overridden by the court?

 

[free spirit]

The woman did not go to the police to claim a rape (or sexual assault). She went to report a lost / stolen handbag (she had left it in the chippy) and of having her drinks spiked (blood tests showed no such drugs in her system and in any case no one suggests she had been drinking with the two men).

She has never claimed she was raped, because she maintains that she cannot remember anything about the incident. It was the cops who set the rape investigation in motion before even speaking to her or to the men.

careful now, that almost looks like you've done a bit of digging into the situation rather than coming out with a knee jerk reaction.

 

[free spirit]

so why are you trying to claim that this sets a precident that allows a woman's consent to be overridden by the court?

because it does.

The court didn't find that she hadn't consented, the court found that it was irrelevant if she had consented or not, as in the courts judgement she was too drunk to have had the legal capacity to give that consent anyway, and also that the other person should have somehow known that this was the case.

 

[killer b]

...and that evans had no reason to believe he had consent, the half of the equation you keep forgetting about.

 

[free spirit]

apart from the most common drug used to spike people with, of course.

if she was spiked then it's unlikely to have been by either of these men given that they only came across her after she'd been out of the club for an hour, and most of the evidence to support her being too drunk to consent came from the period before she'd met them, or pretty much immediately afterwards. She'd have had to have been spiked in the taxi with some very fast acting drug in order for it to have affected her by the time she got to the hotel.

Note that she says she has no memory of things from before she'd met either of them.

Given that she'd had 4 double vodkas in the space of 90 minutes though, my suspicion would be that she hadn't been spiked at all, but her memory loss was a result of 8 shots of vodka hitting the brain in a fairly short space of time. I'm sure we both have a fair amount of experience of this sort of scenario. I can easily see though that she could have been relatively lucid and with it an hour or more later after having some food, fresh air etc even while still being in a memory loss situation, which is what the expert witness for the defence was arguing.

 

[killer b]

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Do you think she's lying?

 

[free spirit]

...and that evans had no reason to believe he had consent, the half of the equation you keep forgetting about.

you mean other than what she is alleged to have said when asked?

and remember both of them would have been interviewed separately, and both of them said the pretty much the same thing about what she'd said.

 

[free spirit]

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Do you think she's lying?

ffs all she's said is she can't remember what happened, that's it.

she's not contradicted the 2 guys version of events, just said she can't remember.

so no I'm not saying she's lying, I'm saying the way the law was applied here is a fucking mess.

 

[bmd]

ffs all she's said is she can't remember what happened, that's it.

she's not contradicted the 2 guys version of events, just said she can't remember.

so no I'm not saying she's lying, I'm saying the way the law was applied here is a fucking mess.

Are you saying that the law cannot prosecute someone who has taken advantage of a vulnerable person?

 

[Athos]

because it does.

The court didn't find that she hadn't consented, the court found that it was irrelevant if she had consented or not, as in the courts judgement she was too drunk to have had the legal capacity to give that consent anyway, and also that the other person should have somehow known that this was the case.

The issue of consent was not irrelevant. How could it be, given the wording of s.1?! That you think it is just goes to show that you don't understand the concept of consent. The fact is that even a 'yes' cannot amount to consent if the person did not have capacity to consent (in this case as a result of voluntary intoxication). And what s.1 requires is that the defendant "does not reasonably believe that [the victim] consents". So let's be clear about it, to convict, the jury must have been sure that he did not believe she had consented.

Just to clarify: do you think that the law is wrong i.e. that what he did ought not to be criminalised? Or that the law was wrongly applied in this case? I've asked this three times now, and it would help if I could understand where you're coming from.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Do you think she's lying?

I read that as the opposite - that fs is saying that it's quite reasonable to believe that she lost hours of her memory from that night due to drinking a lot of vodka in a short space of time, even though she was walking around, talking and doing stuff during those hours. He's saying that similar has happened to him. It has to me too.

 

[free spirit]

Right. Precedents are points OF LAW discussed in judgments. Facts are things that happen in a specific case. Juries decide on facts after having been told how to apply the points of law by the judge. In this case, as shown in the second bit you quoted, the court of appeal is satisfied that the judge correctly informed the jury of the law. That is all the court is saying. Read the first bit you quoted. That is the judge telling the jury that they must be sure she was not capable of consenting. He notably does not say 'if you think she was just a bit pissed really then convict anyway, I don't like the cut of his jib'.

you don't appear to appreciate that you're making the same point as me.

the decision was based on whether or not she was capable of consenting to sex legally due to her level of drunkeness.

the precedent being set here being what that level of drunkeness was, which is well below the levels in previous cases.

Also AFAIK this is the first case in which the defendants have actually stated that the woman did fully consent (and not been contradicted on that by anyone including the woman involved) in the previous case I linked to the guys defence was based on implied consent rather than her actually specifically giving her consent.

 

[Cid]

you don't appear to appreciate that you're making the same point as me.

the decision was based on whether or not she was capable of consenting to sex legally due to her level of drunkeness.

the precedent being set here being what that level of drunkeness was, which is well below the levels in previous cases.

No it isn't. I've explained why and genuinely don't know how I can make it more clear.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

Aside to free spirit's dubious defending here; anyone else noticed something about the girlfriend and her father? rape/power etc?

 

[free spirit]

I read that as the opposite - that fs is saying that it's quite reasonable to believe that she lost hours of her memory from that night due to drinking a lot of vodka in a short space of time, even though she was walking around, talking and doing stuff during those hours. He's saying that similar has happened to him. It has to me too.

and to killer b as well, happens to the best of us, and when it first happens it can be a bit of a shock and it's fairly normal to decide you must have been spiked.

I remember the first time it happened to me, I was absolutely certain I must have been spiked, but looking back on it now, I do remember having a significant number of shots of tequila in a short space of time just prior to engaging drunk autopilot and attempting to navigate my way home to bed via a police wagon, and a plant pot through my front window, and an ambulance and 2 days in hospital. But I was lucid enough to somehow talk the police into giving me a lift home and taking the handcuffs off rather than making me spend a night in the cells.

 

[Athos]

the precedent being set here being what that level of drunkeness was, which is well below the levels in previous cases.

Jury verdicts do not (and cannot) amount to precedents.

 

[Athos]

the court found that he raped her in circumstances that no previous court decision would have found as having been rape.

is this not worthy of a little discussion?

You can't possibly assert what another jury might or might not have concluded.

 

[belboid]

the court found that he raped her in circumstances that no previous court decision would have found as having been rape.

is this not worthy of a little discussion?

As I have repeatedly said, and you have repeatedly ignored, that simply is not true. It is a well established legal principle. You keep lying. Of course you have to to maintain your vile attitude on this thread. You, and ShakespearO are simply coming out with drivel to justify your reactionary, rape apologist shite.

 

[free spirit]

The issue of consent was not irrelevant. How could it be, given the wording of s.1?! That you think it is just goes to show that you don't understand the concept of consent. The fact is that even a 'yes' cannot amount to consent if the person did not have capacity to consent (in this case as a result of voluntary intoxication). And what s.1 requires is that the defendant "does not reasonably believe that [the victim] consents". So let's be clear about it, to convict, the jury must have been sure that he did not believe she had consented.

the issue of what specifically she had said was irrelevant, as she was judged to have not had the legal capacity for her words to have any legal standing due to her level of drunkness.

and no, the judges summing up is pretty specific on this, it wasn't just whether he reasonably believed that she had consented, but also whether he reasonably believed that she had the capacity for that consent to be legally valid.

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.

Just to clarify: do you think that the law is wrong i.e. that what he did ought not to be criminalised? Or that the law was wrongly applied in this case? I've asked this three times now, and it would help if I could understand where you're coming from.

If someone clearly consents, then IMO that should mean that the sex is consensual.

If someone isn't actually capable of giving their consent, then obviously it isn't consensual, but this case really redefines what that means, as previously it meant if they were physically incapable of actually giving their consent, now it means even if they've actually given their consent clearly verbally, then that's still not enough, if she's later judged to have been too drunk for that consent to be valid, then what she did or did not say at the time is now irrelevant.

And I'll point out again, that this is the first time I'm aware of in UK law that a person getting themselves drunk voluntarily has legally removed their capacity to actually make a legal decision about their actions. In all other areas of UK law, someone in that state who'd say attacked someone in the pizza place, or committed criminal damage, or attacked a copper etc would have been legally responsible for their actions, but yet they are now apparently not capable of deciding for themselves if they want to have sex with someone or not.

This interpretation of the law stinks, it's bad law that can't possibly be applied evenly otherwise the prisons would be over flowing with people who'd had drunken one night stands.

 

[free spirit]

You can't possibly assert what another jury might or might not have concluded.

I can assert what previous case law was, that's pretty much how it works.

 

[Athos]

no, I'm saying that if a woman voluntarily consents to sex, whether she's fairly pissed or not, then it's then unreasonable for the bloke to be prosecuted at a later date...

You've no idea whether or not the jury accepted the rapist's claims that she was an enthusiastic participant.

 

[belboid]

The woman did not go to the police to claim a rape (or sexual assault). She went to report a lost / stolen handbag (she had left it in the chippy) and of having her drinks spiked (blood tests showed no such drugs in her system and in any case no one suggests she had been drinking with the two men).

this is true. And it shows why that other rape apologist 1927 was making up shite about the victim having a long history of making up rape claims.

 

[free spirit]

As I have repeatedly said, and you have repeatedly ignored, that simply is not true. It is a well established legal principle. You keep lying. Of course you have to to maintain your vile attitude on this thread. You, and ShakespearO are simply coming out with drivel to justify your reactionary, rape apologist shite.

no it isn't, I've been back and quoted the previous case law on this, feel free to refute it, but you can't simply state that something is true because you say that it is.

 

[Athos]

I can assert what previous case law was, that's pretty much how it works.

Yes, you can assert it. In the same way that you can assert the moon is made of cheese You'd be wrong on both counts, though.

 

[free spirit]

You've no idea whether or not the jury accepted the rapist's claims that she was an enthusiastic participant.

neither do you.

I know that the judgement as directed meant that whether she was or wasn't was irrelevant to the decision.