Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
Everyone has been. No exceptions.
Accused rapist Ched Evans to be released from prison
- Thread starter Bahnhof Strasse
- Start date
Treacle Toes
Time
So this kind of speculation goes unchallenged but when Joe Reilly does similar, he's jumped on?
Some of us actually have to go to work! Urban conversations aren't all we have going on ffs
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
I'm at work!Some of us actually have to go to work! Urban conversations aren't all we have going on ffs
Treacle Toes
Time
Not doing much, obviously.I'm at work!
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
i suppose it sort of loses its sting when it applies to everyone
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
all speculation is equal: but some speculation is more equal than other bits, as eric blair wrote.So this kind of speculation goes unchallenged but when Joe Reilly does similar, he's jumped on?
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
what number of people is normal?
Athos
Well-Known Member
Hi Pac Man, just catching up on this. You started well with your first post and then it all went downhill. Add to that you've managed to find your way into the most contentious thread, on one of the least welcoming boards on the internet, with a contrary opinion!
You're barking up the wrong tree here regarding s41.
There is a view here that the new evidence should never have been admitted IN LAW. The poster who is most vocal about that has hung his whole argument on it and conceded that the second trial jury's verdict was understandable given the admission of the new evidence, but the original guilty verdict would never have been quashed, thus no second trial, if the evidence weren't admitted. "No shit?" I hear you say.
So this argument is that the appellate judges got the law wrong.
They didn't.
The relevant bit of section 41 is section 3 (c) which allows the introduction of a complainants sexual behaviour if:
So if it's similar to that alleged by the defendant and took place at more or less the same time.
Vaughan (for Evans) argued that the the behaviour described by the witnesses was indeed similar. It referred to X taking control, adopting a specific position, and using specific words. People have argued that many people enjoy sex in certain positions, take control, and use certain words. That's true, and Ms Laws (for the prosecution) raised this, pointing out that such behaviour was not unusual. Trouble is, that's not the point. Section 41 does not require the behaviour to be UNUSUAL. It requires the behaviour to be SIMILAR. Vaughan argued that each of these behaviours individually were SIMILAR to what Evans had described, but taken cumulatively they could reasonably be considered to be beyond coincidence (see section 58 of the appeal transcript).
The judges agreed with Vaughan that in that respect the law was satisfied.
The judges also considered the spirit of the law. That is that sexual behaviour should be excluded if any part of its purpose is to traduce the character of the defendant, which would prevent other victims coming forward, and "to counter the twin myths that unchaste women are more likely to consent to intercourse, and in any event are less worth of belief".
That's not the case here. As the judges themselves noted very strongly, this has absolutely no bearing on the character of X because she hadn't made any accusations of rape or commented on consent herself.
So the law was good.
Next you will have people taking issue with the potential for the money to have played a part but you dealt with that quite well yourself. The judges determined to allow the jury to decide on the evidence. The jury would have been aware of the reward offered but either decided it was not relevant or decided to acquit on an entirely different basis.
Someone might say to you: .... which of course is a deliberate misrepresentation of the position. The fact is that juries are duty bound to decide on the veracity of evidence admitted, and in this case they either did, and believed it, or they didn't believe it relevant.
I'm sure that's what you were thinking!
I thought that, out of respect for the wishes of survivors of sexual violence who have posted on this thread asking us to stop, we had reached an understanding that we would neither reply nor refer to each other?
At the very least, I would ask that you do not try to paraphrase what my position is, since you have repeatedly misrepresented it (whether deliberately, or because you've not grasped what I've said).
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
I thought we did too, but you broke the agreement by sneakily, indirectly commenting on one of my posts by quoting Rutita at #4119.
I did the same.
Athos
Well-Known Member
Seriously? I was talking to a general point; you quoted my words (albeit removing my name), and were clearly referring to me. Please stop.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
Treacle Toes
Time
Athos
Well-Known Member
As far as I'm aware, nobody on this thread is seriously proposing a change to the standard of proof required for conviction in rape cases. It's accepted that, to convict, a jury must find guilt beyond reasonable doubt, on the evidence they have heard.
The reference to "the evidence they have heard" is crucial. Both as a matter of principle, and in reality in this case; had the Court of Appeal not concluded that a jury should hear the new evidence, the original verdict would not have been quashed.
As such, a really significant question in this case is whether or not the Court of Appeal should have decided that the new evidence was admissible.
There are some good (and unanswered) arguments that it is wrong in law, and, obviously, some good counter arguments, given that's what the court decided.
But, also, there's a debate about whether, even if a decision to admit the evidence was within a proper margin of discretion, it was just to do so.
On the latter point, most of us appreciate that the rules of evidence are there to ensure a balance between the rights of the accused to defend themselves and some wider interests e.g. the rights of complainants not to be traumatised by the court process (for instance by details of their sex life being introduced by the back door), and the public interest in not deterring reports of rape.
In this case, some of us (myself included) believe that that balance could have been struck without the new evidence being ruled admissible, such that X's sexual history was allowed to be picked over. On the facts of this case, that's primarily because of the limited probative value of the new evidence, rather than the questions around the circumstances in which it was generated.
Some others* believe that that balance could only be acheived by interpreting the relevant provision (s.41) in a way that is more favourable to the interests of a man accused of rape.
Of course, those respective positions will be informed by the protagonists respective agendas/outlook/mindset/priorities/understanding (call it what you will).
* For the record, I'm happy to specifically exclude Spymaster from this group, so that there can be no suggestion that I'm talking to or about him, such that he has no reason to reply in breach of our agreement to respect the wishes of other posters.
The reference to "the evidence they have heard" is crucial. Both as a matter of principle, and in reality in this case; had the Court of Appeal not concluded that a jury should hear the new evidence, the original verdict would not have been quashed.
As such, a really significant question in this case is whether or not the Court of Appeal should have decided that the new evidence was admissible.
There are some good (and unanswered) arguments that it is wrong in law, and, obviously, some good counter arguments, given that's what the court decided.
But, also, there's a debate about whether, even if a decision to admit the evidence was within a proper margin of discretion, it was just to do so.
On the latter point, most of us appreciate that the rules of evidence are there to ensure a balance between the rights of the accused to defend themselves and some wider interests e.g. the rights of complainants not to be traumatised by the court process (for instance by details of their sex life being introduced by the back door), and the public interest in not deterring reports of rape.
In this case, some of us (myself included) believe that that balance could have been struck without the new evidence being ruled admissible, such that X's sexual history was allowed to be picked over. On the facts of this case, that's primarily because of the limited probative value of the new evidence, rather than the questions around the circumstances in which it was generated.
Some others* believe that that balance could only be acheived by interpreting the relevant provision (s.41) in a way that is more favourable to the interests of a man accused of rape.
Of course, those respective positions will be informed by the protagonists respective agendas/outlook/mindset/priorities/understanding (call it what you will).
* For the record, I'm happy to specifically exclude Spymaster from this group, so that there can be no suggestion that I'm talking to or about him, such that he has no reason to reply in breach of our agreement to respect the wishes of other posters.
tim
EXPLODED TIM! (Help me!!!)
You don't have much respect for ordinary people, do you? Whatever the faults of the English legal system it does allow the decision of innocent or guilt to be made by randomly selected fellow citizens, not by a legal elite and it insists that the level of proof is beyond reasonable doubt. Would you prefer judgment to be left in the hands of the professionals?
This patroning post says more about you and your snobbish prejudices than it does about the character of your fellow citizens.
Joe Reilly
Well-Known Member
Aren't you the guy who thinks police still beat confessions out of people as a matter of routine?
Joe Reilly
Well-Known Member
I'll take your word for it. But one things for sure, it wasn't in criminal law.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
As far as I'm aware nobody on this thread believes that someone should be convicted of something he may not have done.
If the decision to admit new evidence was correct in law (absolutely nothing to the contrary has been posted, and plenty to support that it was, has) and leads to the overturning of an unsafe conviction, how can it not be just?
Obviously the rules of evidence should protect women who complain of rape from having their sexual history being picked over in court but not to the extent that a possibly innocent man is imprisoned and falsely branded a rapist.
Some of us (myself included) believe that it would have been absolutely impossible for this balance to have been struck without the admission of the new evidence.
Some others* believe that balance is maintained interpreting section 41 against its spirit, in a way that denies a possibly innocent man a potential defence FOR A JURY TO DECIDE ON. Remember, this evidence did not automatically acquit him. It still had to be considered by a jury.
The only agenda in operation here is the one that suggests defendants accused of rape should be treated differently in law to anyone else.
(* I'm happy to exclude Athos from this group, so that ... etc etc)
If the decision to admit new evidence was correct in law (absolutely nothing to the contrary has been posted, and plenty to support that it was, has) and leads to the overturning of an unsafe conviction, how can it not be just?
Obviously the rules of evidence should protect women who complain of rape from having their sexual history being picked over in court but not to the extent that a possibly innocent man is imprisoned and falsely branded a rapist.
Some of us (myself included) believe that it would have been absolutely impossible for this balance to have been struck without the admission of the new evidence.
Some others* believe that balance is maintained interpreting section 41 against its spirit, in a way that denies a possibly innocent man a potential defence FOR A JURY TO DECIDE ON. Remember, this evidence did not automatically acquit him. It still had to be considered by a jury.
The only agenda in operation here is the one that suggests defendants accused of rape should be treated differently in law to anyone else.
(* I'm happy to exclude Athos from this group, so that ... etc etc)
Last edited:
Joe Reilly
Well-Known Member
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
You stink of MRA self-righteousness, new fish.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
you won't make that mistake againYep sorry everyone, don't know what came over me, I felt a bit sorry for the brand new poster who'd picked this of all threads as a way in to the welcoming supportive community that is U75.
Joe Reilly
Well-Known Member
Unless she went into the witness box and I said 'I don't remember' to every question under cross examination it is inevitable (if the defense barrister is a sharp cookie, and I'm sure he was) she would have simply had to 'add' to her initial statement. And no matter how strong the case looks on paper, if it is to come unglued, it will almost always begin in the witness box.
Treacle Toes
Time
Who was personally attacking Pacman? Can these personal attacks be quoted please? I see what they posted being challenged and then someone saying that they shouldn't feel personally attacked.
Can these personal attacks be quoted please? I see what they posted being challenged and then someone saying that they shouldn't feel personally attacked.
Treacle Toes
Time
Ah so you yourself don't know what she did or didn't say but for some reason you presume your imagination is correct.
Wilf
Slouching towards Billingham
I'm not sure about that. This piece by Vera Baird has been linked to. Whilst she doesn't directly question the judge or court of appeal, she clearly thinks the admission of the sexual history went against the intentions of the legislation she was involved with.
We cannot allow the courts to judge rape by sexual history | Vera Baird
Similar threads
