Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Accused rapist Ched Evans to be released from prison

Why bother with a retrial? Hopefully if found not guilty he will donate any compensation to a rape charity.

What happens to the young woman involved if he is found not guilty? I can imagine him using some big shot solicitor to push for a conviction against her. similar to what happened with woman who ended up taking her own life after the cps took over a private prosecution against her.

He will be re-tried as the quashing of conviction was done on a legal technicality. Read the judge's statement: In summary, we have concluded that we must allow the appeal and that it is in the interests of justice to order a retrial.

His team are saying that proves beyond all doubt he is innocent. In reality it says no such thing.

His victim made no complaint, wish people would stop thinking that if someone beats a rape charge that the woman is guilty of something, that kind of thinking is fucked up.
 
But she could have prevented the trial by saying that the sex was consensual (if indeed it was).


She has claimed all along that she cannot remember anything. If her facebook posts contradict that and that the whole thing was some kind of stitch-up, it would seem odd that she did not go to the police and report the attack.
 
Why that reply? I don't really know about the case, was there a witness to it? I'm asking a qestion no need to be a dick about it.
The prosecution case was that she was too drunk to consent.

Now, evidence has seemingly surfaced suggesting that that was not the case. She said she didn't remember. Curious stuff.
 
Does there need to be a conviction before somebody can apply for compensation?

So, what are the possible outcomes of this retrial? Not guilty. Found guilty again and maybe giving six years of which he'd probably serve mostly on tag I assume as he's already done most of what you would serve of a six year sentence. is it possible to have his sentence reduced if found guilty again?
 
He will be re-tried as the quashing of conviction was done on a legal technicality.
There's not really any such thing as a legal technicality in law. It's usually used to suggest that correct procedure wasn't followed but that's not the case here.

The conviction was quashed because the new evidence cast doubt on its safety.
 
Does there need to be a conviction before somebody can apply for compensation?

He is back where he was before being convicted; charged with rape and awaiting trial.

if he gets a not guilty compo doesn't necessarily follow; you get it if you are 100% pure as the driven innocent, he most certainly isn't and any not guilty will be technical/high standard of proof related.
 
There's not really any such thing as a legal technicality in law. It's usually used to suggest that correct procedure wasn't followed but that's not the case here.

The conviction was quashed because the new evidence cast doubt on its safety.

It's a figure of speech. This quashing is not the law stating that he's innocent, indeed the CPS are stating that they feel there is a strong probability that he will be found guilty at his re-trial.
 
if he gets a not guilty compo doesn't necessarily follow; you get it if you are 100% pure as the driven innocent, he most certainly isn't and any not guilty will be technical/high standard of proof related.

No, what I meant was can a victim of a crime claim compensation even where no charges are brought. I'm sure I read that somewhere about certain crimes.

Would the young woman involved now have to pay back any compensation she may have received if evans is found not guilty this time.
 
No, what I meant was can a victim of a crime claim compensation even where no charges are brought. I'm sure I read that somewhere about certain crimes.

AFAIK she hasn't had any from him.

But a victim can sue even on a not guilty, balance of probability for claims, vs. beyond all reasonable doubt for criminal conviction.
 
Where's the CPS statement? Can't find anything.

The CPS is the body who is arranging the new trial, they can't do so unless they believe there is a strong probability of conviction. That's the standard they operate under. They said before today's verdict that if it were to be quashed that they would be going for another trial, this suggests that they knew the fresh evidence would be enough for the court of appeal to quash, but they feel that if it were presented in a full trial the guilty verdict would still be reached. It will be interesting to find out exactly what that fresh evidence is.
 
Eh?

How about, because he believes that he was not guilty of rape, feels that there is new evidence to support this, and doesn't want to be known as a rapist for the rest of his life?

If it's shown that she made a false allegation which led to the destruction of his career and imprisonment, then she should be prosecuted.
IIRC she always said she was too drunk to remember whether she consented and she didn't make a complaint.
 
Back
Top Bottom