Accused rapist Ched Evans to be released from prison

[belboid]

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.

You try and claim this is something different, but it isnt. You have provided zero justification for your view. Not even our quickly googled case law backs you up. Now FOAD

 

[free spirit]

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.

really, well I've quoted the previous case law, including those that you supplied, you've merely repeated the same lines over and over again.

 

[free spirit]

You try and claim this is something different, but it isnt. You have provided zero justification for your view. Not even our quickly googled case law backs you up. Now FOAD

we're onto page 6 of a long list of justifications for my views, referenced to various sources, so whether you agree with me or not, you can't actually state that I've provided zero justification for my views. You on the other hand...

 

[littlebabyjesus]

how do you know that she voluntary consented to sex? Did she say that? No she didn't did she? Or are you still choosing to believe a rapist?

She doesn't know. So it comes down to believability of the men's story. I don't know the details of that, but you're in a bit of a logical bind if you're prejudging him as a rapist before listening to what he says happened.

 

[belboid]

we're onto page 6 of a long list of justifications for my views, referenced to various sources, so whether you agree with me or not, you can't actually state that I've provided zero justification for my views. You on the other hand...

because the 'evidence' for your view is entirely spurious. YOU claim that she gave 'clear verbal' permission for sex. But that was NEVER established. It was merely claimed by Evans. Evans who is was shown lied to the police and court. And thus wasn't believed. You are using badly googled info simply to provide a smokescreen for your excusing a rapists lies.

 

[comrade spurski]

She doesn't know. So it comes down to believability of the men's story. I don't know the details of that, but you're in a bit of a logical bind if you're prejudging him as a rapist before listening to what he says happened.

No I aint...he is a convicted rapist...so I am not prejudging anything...a jury who heard all relevant info found him guilty of rape so he is a rapist.

 

[free spirit]

YOU claim that she gave 'clear verbal' permission for sex.

oh do I now? If I have then I've obviously made a mistake somewhere in one of my posts, as I've made great efforts through this thread not to say that she definitely did, but to say that this is what was alleged, and that this wasn't refuted in court (to my knowledge), and that either way this wasn't what the judgement relied on.

You are using badly googled info simply to provide a smokescreen for your excusing a rapists lies.

so to be clear, is it the court of appeal decision on this that you're saying is badly googled info, or the court of appeal decision on brie, or the legal discussion paper discussing precisely this issue?

and what better googled info have you brought to this thread to support your viewpoint?

 

[belboid]

oh do I now? If I have then I've obviously made a mistake somewhere in one of my posts, as I've made great efforts through this thread not to say that she definitely did, but to say that this is what was alleged, and that this wasn't refuted in court (to my knowledge), and that either way this wasn't what the judgement relied on.

consent isn't the issue? Yes it is.

so to be clear, is it the court of appeal decision on this that you're saying is badly googled info, or the court of appeal decision on brie, or the legal discussion paper discussing precisely this issue?

and what better googled info have you brought to this thread to support your viewpoint?

Read what I wrote, your quotes are irrelevant, because they are not the key pieces of evidence. Evans lying [in the view of the jury] was.

 

[free spirit]

because the 'evidence' for your view is entirely spurious. YOU claim that she gave 'clear verbal' permission for sex. But that was NEVER established. It was merely claimed by Evans. Evans who is was shown lied to the police and court. And thus wasn't believed. You are using badly googled info simply to provide a smokescreen for your excusing a rapists lies.

ok, I've now gone back through all your posts, and you've not referenced a single claim you've made on this thread. Just stated your opinion, and your recollection of what you think happened as fact and expected that everyone should merely accept this.

unless you were on the jury or something, then I'd have to say that your position here is a little untenable. I'm providing a smokescreen by backing up my assertions with court of appeal judgements, previous case law etc, but you're perfectly fine for never backing anything up that you've stated?

I think you're pretty much making my earlier point about the difficulty in holding reasoned debate on tricky issues on urban these days.

 

[free spirit]

consent isn't the issue? Yes it is.

the person's capacity to give their consent while drunk is the issue, as made clear in the judges summing up to the jury, that I've quoted at least twice recently.

 

[1%er]

Most of the disputes and differences in facts and law on this thread appear to have been dealt with in the Judgement of the renewed application for leave to
appeal against both conviction and sentence

22. The second matter that he suggested required attention was a direction to the jury that if they found (contrary to the evidence given by the expert called for the applicant) that the complainant had no memory of events in the bedroom, that did not mean that she did not consent. The judge addressed this issue in clear terms. He began by directing the jury in the precise words of the relevant statutory provision:
"A complainant consents if, and only if, she has the freedom and
capacity to make a choice, and she exercised that choice to agree
to sexual intercourse."

He then addressed the implications and consequences of the evidence that the complainant had been drinking and had possibly taken cocaine. He said:
"There are two ways in which drink and/or drugs can affect an
individual who is intoxicated. First, it can remove inhibitions. A
person may do things when intoxicated which she would not do,
or be less likely to do if sober. Secondly, she may consume so
much alcohol and/or drugs that it affects her state of awareness.
So you need to reach a conclusion upon what was the
complainant's state of intoxication, such as you may find it to be.
Was she just disinhibited, or had what she had taken removed
her capacity to exercise a choice?"
He went on to explain:
"A woman clearly does not have the capacity to make a choice if
she is completely unconscious through the effects of drink and
drugs, but there are various stages of consciousness, from being
wide awake to dim awareness of reality. In a state of dim and
drunken awareness you may, or may not, be in a condition to
make choices. So you will need to consider the evidence of the
complainant's state and decide these two questions: was she in a
condition in which she was capable of making any choice one
way or another? If you are sure that she was not, then she did not
consent. If, on the other hand, you conclude that she chose to
agree to sexual intercourse, or may have done, then you must find
the defendants not guilty."

 

[Athos]

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.

The issue of what she said was of limited significance; that's not what you claimed, though. You said that consent was irrelevant. You were wrong.

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.

Again, you misunderstand. If he did not reasonably believe that she had the capacity to consent, then it follows that he cannot reasonably have believed that she had, in fact, consented, notwithstanding what she may or may not have said.

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

Ok. So in a case where someone says 'yes' but doesn't have the capacity to consent, has she consented or not?

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.

But you're wrong about what previous cases said, and what this one means.

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.

You are wrong. There are previous cases in which it was made clear that voluntary intoxication can remove capacity, so as to vitiate consent. This was explicitly addressed in Bree, and before that, in Lang.

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.

You do realise that those things are crimes, unlike being raped? Otherwise guilty people ought not to be afforded a defence by virtue of their own voluntary intoxication. But you seem to be suggesting that they ought to be afforded a defence by virtue of their victim's voluntary intoxication!

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.

Your obfuscating again. Is the law (principally s.1 and the case law around consent) wrong? Or has it simply been wrongly applied here?

 

[killer b]

I think you're pretty much making my earlier point about the difficulty in holding reasoned debate on tricky issues on urban these days.

fuck off with this bullshit. you would have been roasted on this 10 years ago too.

 

[Sasaferrato]

So he's coming out this week, having served half his sentence for rape.

Judy Finnigan has declared that his rape was not as bad as other rapes

His girlfriend is standing by him, in spite of him being filmed committing the rape.

His girlfriend's father is also standing by him and funding appeals and this website: http://www.chedevans.com/

120,000 have signed a petition calling for him not to be allowed to resume his football career upon release, 5000 have signed a counter-petition for him to be allowed back in the Blades.

Personally I don't think that anyone who has served their time for a crime should be denied work.

However I really do not understand how you can be released half way through your sentence whilst still protesting you innocence?

I heard this morning that his case has been 'fast tracked' to the Criminal Review Board. There may be more to this than is first seen.

 

[bmd]

As far as him playing football again goes I think it's a shit example for kids, to have a convicted, unrepentant rapist enjoying a high profile job.

Look lads, get rapey and as long as you're talented enough then all will be well. Lasses, well...you know, sorry and all that.

 

[Athos]

really, well I've quoted the previous case law, including those that you supplied, you've merely repeated the same lines over and over again.

It seems I have little choice but to repeat myself. Because you just don't don't get, despite the fact that it really can't be made any clearer. You've selectively quoted case law without understanding what it means. That proves nothing.

 

[belboid]

ok, I've now gone back through all your posts, and you've not referenced a single claim you've made on this thread. Just stated your opinion, and your recollection of what you think happened as fact and expected that everyone should merely accept this.

I have referred back to the courst case, the facs as laid out there. As I am not trying to excuse rape, I dont need to reference anything else.

I have also referenced several times where you have - like Evans - explicitly lied. So your claims, like his, are to be taken with a fucking big dose of salt.

 

[Athos]

really, well I've quoted the previous case law, including those that you supplied, you've merely repeated the same lines over and over again.

It seems I have little choice but to repeat myself. Because you just don't don't get, despite the fact that it really can't be made any clearer. You've selectively quoted case law without understanding what it means. That proves nothing.

 

[belboid]

It seems I have little choice but to repeat myself. Because you just don't don't get, despite the fact that it really can't be made any clearer. You've selectively quoted case law without understanding what it means. That proves nothing.

Quite, its the classic conspiraloon bullshit - provide lots of smoke to cover up their main, dishonest and bullshit, claim.

 

[Sasaferrato]

I think it's also to do with the fact that Clayton wasn't convicted. They both penetrated her so Ched Evans' supporters are saying it doesn't make sense that one is convicted and the other not.

Maybe it doesn't make sense but the victim went back to the hotel with just Clayton. Evans joined them later and walked in on them. Two friends watched through a window. I think the jury decided she consented to have sex with Clayton but since Evans turned up later the whole "well you went home with him" thing didn't really apply.

Ah. That explains a lot. I haven't been following the case, so didn't realise that a potential miscarriage would be based on a 'procedural matter', rather than on actual guilt or innocence. Having read the details of the case, now, there is no doubt as to his guilt. To have his conviction overturned on the basis, that someone else doing the same thing was found 'not guilty' would be a miscarriage.

 

[SpackleFrog]

yes he was sleazy as fuck doing that, but the case hinged legally on her capacity to give consent at that point, not on whether he was a sleazy fuck.

And there we are, you've done a Galloway. He's not a rapist, just a sleazy bastard. It's not rape, just bad etiquette. In your mind, clearly, what most people see as rape is just being a bit sleazy.

Not only do you fail to grasp that what you call sleazy is the predatory calculating behaviour of an abuser, you also keep insisting she couldn't have been that drunk and therefore everything that happened was consensual.

Why don't you actually think about it? She's in a hotel room having sex. Lets assume at this point it's genuinely consensual, for the sake of argument. Then a total stranger (who had to beg the night staff for a key card don't forget) bursts in and says "Can I join in?" In that situation, how many sober people would be able to say "No, I consent only to sex with the person I came here with" calmly and straight away? Now how likely is it that when Evans burst in to the total surprise of the woman (if she was aware of it) that despite the drink and the fact that she was in the middle of having sex with somebody in THEIR hotel room, she immediately understood exactly what Evans meant and vocally consented straight away?

 

[1%er]

Ah. That explains a lot. I haven't been following the case, so didn't realise that a potential miscarriage would be based on a 'procedural matter', rather than on actual guilt or innocence. Having read the details of the case, now, there is no doubt as to his guilt. To have his conviction overturned on the basis, that someone else doing the same thing was found 'not guilty' would be a miscarriage.

From the above link:
20. Given that direction, it was open to the jury to convict both defendants, to acquit both
defendants, or to convict one and not the other defendant. That was the point of a joint trial in
which separate verdicts were to be returned. It was open to the jury to consider, as it seems to us, that even if the complainant did not, in fact, consent to sexual intercourse with either of the
two men, that in the light of his part in what happened
--
the meeting in the street and so on
--
McDonald may reasonably have believed that the complainant had consented to sexual activity
with him, and at the same time concluded that the applicant knew perfectly well that she had not
consented to sexual activity with him (the applicant). The circumstances in which each of
the two men came to be involved in the sexual activity was quite different; so indeed were the
circumstances in which they left her. These seem to us to be matters entirely open to the jury.
There is no inconsistency.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

I heard this morning that his case has been 'fast tracked' to the Criminal Review Board. There may be more to this than is first seen.

Wouldn't read too much into this, more to do with getting it done and dusted as it's so high profile.

 

[comrade spurski]

The woman did not go to the police to cprosecuteda 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.

If you seriously believe she reported her bag missing and the police decided on a whim to prosecute him, and the cps went along with it, as did a judge and a jury then it suggest you are in a dark place. There has been no reason given as to why the judiciary would victimise him...suggesting that he was not victimised...and he is actually acrapist

 

[1%er]

Wouldn't read too much into this, more to do with getting it done and dusted as it's so high profile.

I just went to the CCRC site and firefox tells me it is not a trusted site
I wanted to look up their "policy on prioritisation"

 

[ViolentPanda]

blood alcohol levels are sufficient to get people done for drink driving on a regular basis, but not sufficient to determine someone's level of drunkness in this case?

When you're nicked drink-driving, you're breathalysed at the scene, and blood is taken back at the copshop. If you're involved in a drunken affray, blood is taken at the copshop. In both cases, a sample is usually taken within an hour of the offence. In this case, a blood sample was taken half a day later, by which time her liver could have metabolised a substantial amount of alcohol. IIRC the liver can clear about 2 units per hour.

right, well what would you suggest?


no you've missed my point - you have made this up, it has nothing to do with this case, so bringing it up is bullshit.

I haven't made anything up. All I've done is pointed out that such a drug could have been used, and that if it was used, then the tests available at the time probably wouldn't have detected it half a day later. For some reason you've taken this as meaning that I'm claiming that Evans used a date-rape drug, probably because you're a twat.

seriously.

you seriously think everyone on a night out should be carrying a breathalyser and breathalysing anyone they might be considering asking to come home with them prior to popping the question?

get your lips around this breathlyser tube love you've pulled.....

I think that if you're so fucking worried about the possibility of getting falsely nicked for rape, then you should do whatever you can to assuage your paranoia.

ah I'm sorry love, but you seem to have had one too many of those voddie and cokes, so I'm going to have to decline your invitation for a night of passion on the basis that you're too drunk to make that decision rationally.


really? an informed debate in which one side is calling me rape apologist cunt and the like, despite mostly not having bothered to actually do any research beyond the tabloid headlines?

Have a look at what you just proposed above, then maybe think if that seems like a sound law that you really support. fucking breathalysers.

Yep, you're definitely a twat.

 

[Sasaferrato]

Rather than clog the thread by including Athos's lengthy responses, his remarks do raise a point.

'Voluntary intoxication'. This is used time and time again as defence or mitigation claim in criminal cases.

It is time that Civil Law came into line with Military Law on this matter.

'So Sas, you smacked the C.O. whilst pissed' 'Yes Sir', right, fined £100.00 for being drunk, 3 months in clink for smacking the C.O.

Voluntary intoxication should not be allowed as a defence, but should be regarded as a deliberately aggravating factor.

Let me make something absolutely clear though, I am not saying that any woman (or man) who happens to have too much to drink, is responsible for any criminal act committed on them.

 

[Athos]

I just went to the CCRC site and firefox tells me it is not a trusted site
I wanted to look up their "policy on prioritisation"

Do some cases get priority?
We look at cases in the order in which they arrive, but we deal with the
cases of people in prison before those of people who are out of prison
or who didn’t go to prison. If you received a life sentence and are out
on licence, we will treat you in the same way that we would treat
someone who is in custody.
There may be special reasons why a particular case should be looked
at more urgently. These special reasons can be things like concerns
about the health of the person applying, a serious illness affecting a
potentially important witness, or something affecting how long
evidence may last. The time to tell us about any special reasons in your
case will usually be after we have written to you to say we will be reviewing your case.[/QUOTE

 

[1%er]

Rather than clog the thread by including Athos's lengthy responses, his remarks do raise a point.

'Voluntary intoxication'. This is used time and time again as defence or mitigation claim in criminal cases.

It is time that Civil Law came into line with Military Law on this matter.

'So Sas, you smacked the C.O. whilst pissed' 'Yes Sir', right, fined £100.00 for being drunk, 3 months in clink for smacking the C.O.

Voluntary intoxication should not be allowed as a defence, but should be regarded as a deliberately aggravating factor.

Let me make something absolutely clear though, I am not saying that any woman (or man) who happens to have too much to drink, is responsible for any criminal act committed on them.

Two different things, one is a person being drunk and committing a crime the other is being drunk and being the victim of a crime

Edit as my question seems to have disappeared, is being drunk "allowed as a defence" under English law?

 

[Sasaferrato]

When you're nicked drink-driving, you're breathalysed at the scene, and blood is taken back at the copshop. If you're involved in a drunken affray, blood is taken at the copshop. In both cases, a sample is usually taken within an hour of the offence. In this case, a blood sample was taken half a day later, by which time her liver could have metabolised a substantial amount of alcohol. IIRC the liver can clear about 2 units per hour.

One, and only that amount in a seasoned drinker.



I haven't made anything up. All I've done is pointed out that such a drug could have been used, and that if it was used, then the tests available at the time probably wouldn't have detected it half a day later. For some reason you've taken this as meaning that I'm claiming that Evans used a date-rape drug, probably because you're a twat.



I think that if you're so fucking worried about the possibility of getting falsely nicked for rape, then you should do whatever you can to assuage your paranoia.



Yep, you're definitely a twat.