Jump to content

Ched Evans

back to the future

Recommended Posts

ckn

ckn

Posted
Posted

I think you're understating the significance of a quashed conviction. The guys innocent right now.

Not necessarily.  On a technicality in the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" he's innocent.  If the appeal court had believed new evidence had proven him entirely innocent then there would be no retrial, by ordering a retrial the court are saying that there's enough evidence left to warrant a new jury hearing it with either the new defence evidence included or certain prosecution evidence excluded.  He's in exactly the same situation as anyone else who has been accused of rape and is being taken forward to a court hearing.

"When in deadly danger, when beset by doubt; run in little circles, wave your arms and shout"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 254
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Bedford Roughyed

Bedford Roughyed

Posted
Posted

And as there is now a retrial, it is a live case so be careful what you say.

With the best, thats a good bit of PR, though I would say the Bedford team, theres, like, you know, 13 blokes who can get together at the weekend to have a game together, which doesnt point to expansion of the game. Point, yeah go on!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
WearyRhino

WearyRhino

Posted
Posted

I'm interested into how binding a judges 'order' for a re-trial can be. Surely, if the DPP believes that, in light if the new evidence, there is little chance of securing a guilty verdict then it would be ridiculous to go ahead just to abide by a judges order. Presumably, the Office of the DPP is as free to not prosecute as they would be in any other case. Similarly, as he has already served his sentence, unless a guilty verdict is likely to result in a greater sentence then what is the point?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ckn

ckn

Posted
Posted

I'm interested into how binding a judges 'order' for a re-trial can be. Surely, if the DPP believes that, in light if the new evidence, there is little chance of securing a guilty verdict then it would be ridiculous to go ahead just to abide by a judges order. Presumably, the Office of the DPP is as free to not prosecute as they would be in any other case. Similarly, as he has already served his sentence, unless a guilty verdict is likely to result in a greater sentence then what is the point?

You're right, the CPS/DPP can stop a prosecution of a retrial at any time.  If he's guilty then that essentially wrecks many things he can do in the future as he'll never get past any criminal record check that comes up.  Plus he loses automatic visa rights for most visa waiver countries.  I'd guess the CPS/DPP are talking to the accuser (note, changed from victim) asking her if she wants to go through it all again before making a decision to go for trial.

"When in deadly danger, when beset by doubt; run in little circles, wave your arms and shout"

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bedford Roughyed

Bedford Roughyed

Posted
Posted

This is pretty much all that can (and should) be said on the case until it goes to court -

 

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/judgments/r-v-chedwyn-evans/

With the best, thats a good bit of PR, though I would say the Bedford team, theres, like, you know, 13 blokes who can get together at the weekend to have a game together, which doesnt point to expansion of the game. Point, yeah go on!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.