"... deficiencies in the trial judge’s summing up meant the jury was not given any or any sufficient direction to enable their verdict to be regarded as safe."
That matter was considered at Evans' first attempt to seek leave to appeal and the appeal judges held that his trial judge's summing up was not deficient.
So, the Bree precedent doesn't apply to the Evans case.
Why do you keep saying this? The Bree precedent applies to all cases of this nature because it was heard in the Court of Appeal. The trial judge in Evans' case even quoted the Bree ruling in his summing up.
Every legal concept is argued about but 'Heavily intoxicated' is far easier to define than the present law!
The other evidence presented in this case only supports the generally accepted facts of the case, that she was very drunk but conscious and capable of making some decisions.
Yeah but the law has to cover everything, not just alcohol, so it can't be more specific as defendants would use it to escape conviction.
One piece of evidence I keep coming back to is what the night porter said: "when she arrived, she was extremely drunk, had a blank expression on her face, and appeared to be holding onto McDonald for support,"
I think that evidence may be what swung the jury, along with how he appeared as a witness and under cross-examination of course, and him being so close and watching carefully when McD and her walked in. The CCTV as posted online doesn't really prove anything either way but the porter's evidence makes it look pretty bad for both defendants! There were other witnesses too don't forget, and I think the witnesses more than the CCTV got him convicted.
Sorry fella, I'm going to have to totally disagree with you on this one. Peaceful legal protests leaving employers still free to do what they like, versus illegal harrassment and hounding forcing 5 changes of address and identity? They are not even in the same ball park! Peaceful lawful campaigning is a normal part of British society; harrassment is a crime, especially (but not only) if the victim is being hounded - and only a handful of them were caught and punished.
Not so sure about that d@ve as it seems to me the social media outbursts just went crazy.....on both sides.
AFAIK the girl was named on Twitter and called numerous not particularly pleasant names. Name calling itself isn't illegal though yes those who named her committed an offence as by then i believe she had been given anonymity. Odd then that those the Police contacted were then each ordered to pay damages to the girl and not fined. I always thought if you commit an offence you get fined (i got fined for doing 32 in a 30 area). Hell i even got fined for over staying my welcome in bloody Dover!
What concerns me on the other side, this vigorous and very vocal campaigning via FB and Twitter to stop any clubs from signing Evans on their books is, like it or not, Evans has served the usual half of his sentence and is now released from Prison.
Under any other circumstance that would be the end of the matter and the ex-prisoner rehabilitated back into civilian life. But in this case the Twitterers decided Evans is not going to work in any Football club.....because they say so.
I haven't read anywhere or heard any suggestions from any quite where and what they suggest Evans do for a living. Perhaps they are happy to contribute to his upkeep via State benefits?
It's pretty simple to understand
Either A the verdict was due to inconsistant thinking by the jury.
Or B the jury had a reasonable doubt in that McDonald might have reasonably believed she consented to having sex with him, but no reasonable doubt in regards to Evans.
Your no other evidence of what went on in the room also discounts evidence leading up to going to the room and the expert evidence vs the account of her being fully concious and active in the room, and what she might have to say about the things attributed to her by the men as far as if they were things she might have done or said.
Well there is C, which is that they found she did actually consent to McDonald but not Evans (your B I think presupposes that they found she lacked capacity to consent.
That said, I agree that your B is the most likely reasoning. It is how that decision could possibly be reached on the evidence available I am struggling with. CCTV of her an hour and a half before is well and good but is hardly conclusive evidence and I struggle to see how the night porter's evidence of her being extremely drunk prevents R v. Bree applying.
As for the expert evidence, that seems to have been she would have been no more than 2.5 times over the legal limit by the time Evans arrived. Whilst I have my doubts about the accuracy of her claims on the amount she had to drink, that was the figure the jury had to work with. The most lightweight drinker I know would be no more than slightly tipsy at that sort of level.
* personally I think she must have drunk more than claimed but I again don't see how the jury could ignore her undisputed evidence.
I haven't read anywhere or heard any suggestions from any quite where and what they suggest Evans do for a living. Perhaps they are happy to contribute to his upkeep via State benefits?
Tricky one, but I think he'd be playing for Shef. Utd right now if he'd played his cards right. Silly fella IMO, it's a pride thing - heart ruling head coupled with not understanding (even now) what legal consent really means.
It'll all die down eventually of course, but won't completely go away unless he publicly apologises to the victim at least for the massive harassment she's having to put up with from his supporters, disassociates himself from the harassers, asks them to stop, and also for not understanding that what he did could be illegal. At the very least.
Yeah but the law has to cover everything, not just alcohol, so it can't be more specific as defendants would use it to escape conviction.
One piece of evidence I keep coming back to is what the night porter said: "when she arrived, she was extremely drunk, had a blank expression on her face, and appeared to be holding onto McDonald for support,"
I think that evidence may be what swung the jury, along with how he appeared as a witness and under cross-examination of course, and him being so close and watcing carefully when McD and her walked in. The CCTV as posted online doesn't really prove anything either way but the porter's evidence makes it look pretty bad for both defendants!
Again all that tells us is that she was very drunk, also I'd be careful about making assumptions given that McDonald was ultimately acquitted and Evans had not yet arrived at that point.
I do agree with you that the available CCTV proves nothing, but it certainly shows that she was walking unaided for at least some of the time. Indeed she appears to walk in with McDonald, then walk back out alone before returning and following him to the room.
Again all that tells us is that she was very drunk, also I'd be careful about making assumptions given that McDonald was ultimately acquitted and Evans had not yet arrived at that point.
I do agree with you that the available CCTV proves nothing, but it certainly shows that she was walking unaided for at least some of the time. Indeed she appears to walk in with McDonald, then walk back out alone before returning and following him to the room.
I'd say they probably found her incapable for both of them but gave McD the benefit of the doubt if he argued that he reasonably believed that she could consent. Evans probably couldn't successfully argue that though, due to the manner of his arrival, inconsistencies between the evidence given by the two of them, and the speed he dived in at.
The online hotel CCTV is heavily edited though so I want to know what's missing and why. It does show her appear to stumble though on one frame. Porter's testimony would have been more important though.
I'd say they probably found her incapable for both of them but gave McD the benefit of the doubt if he argued that he reasonably believed that she could consent. Evans probably couldn't successfully argue that though, due to the manner of his arrival, inconsistencies between the evidence given by the two of them, and the speed he dived in at.
The hotel CCTV is heavily edited though so I want to know what's missing and why. It does show her appear to stumble though on one frame. Porter's testimony would have been more important though.
It shows McDonald and X entering the hotel, X realises she's left something outside and walks out alone, re-enters the hotel (carrying something?) and follows McDonald presumably to his room. All we can say for certain from it is that she was definitely walking unaided, and had enough of her faculties to realise she had forgotten something.
I'd say they probably found her incapable for both of them but gave McD the benefit of the doubt if he argued that he reasonably believed that she could consent. Evans probably couldn't successfully argue that though, due to the manner of his arrival, inconsistencies between the evidence given by the two of them, and the speed he dived in at.
The online hotel CCTV is heavily edited though so I want to know what's missing and why. It does show her appear to stumble though on one frame. Porter's testimony would have been more important though.
So we have a situation where the person who spends the longest time with her reasonably (in the jury's view) concludes she can consent? Hard to see much logic there.
So we have a situation where the person who spends the longest time with her reasonably (in the jury's view) concludes she can consent? Hard to see much logic there.
I think it's more the other way round. The person who doesn't know her, has never met her before, spends hardly any time with her, and disagrees with his friend about which one of them asked her for consent, cannotreasonably have believed he had consent. But the other guy might, just might have reasonably believed it. Lucky for him!
Tricky one, but I think he'd be playing for Shef. Utd right now if he'd played his cards right. Silly fella IMO, it's a pride thing - heart ruling head coupled with not understanding (even now) what legal consent really means.
It'll all die down eventually of course, but won't completely go away unless he publicly apologises to the victim at least for the massive harassment she's having to put up with from his supporters, disassociates himself from the harassers, asks them to stop, and also for not understanding that what he did could be illegal. At the very least.
As Evans is appealing an apology is a total non-starter at this point in time. He still states that she consented to the sex so he would be crazy to apologise. I'm sure his Lawyers will have told him that otherwise they may as well pack up working for him now! However, if his appeal fails and Evans does apologise.....what then? Do you really believe all these silly Twitterers will quietly disappear? Because i for one certainly don't. They won't be happy until they have his head on a plate.
In fairness d@ve i've not seen anything to suggest Evans has encouraged any intimidation of the girl by his 'camp' and i'm sure he wouldn't even need any of his legal team to advise him not to associate himself with them!
Of course as the girl has a 'lower profile' (or at least did), nobody knows who she has remained in contact with or what input she has made. She removed certain tweets from her account (now closed anyway) but why would you remove anything.....unless it was potentially incriminating?
As Evans is appealing an apology is a total non-starter at this point in time. He still states that she consented to the sex so he would be crazy to apologise. I'm sure his Lawyers will have told him that otherwise they may as well pack up working for him now! However, if his appeal fails and Evans does apologise.....what then? Do you really believe all these silly Twitterers will quietly disappear? Because i for one certainly don't. They won't be happy until they have his head on a plate.
In fairness d@ve i've not seen anything to suggest Evans has encouraged any intimidation of the girl by his 'camp' and i'm sure he wouldn't even need any of his legal team to advise him not to associate himself with them!
Of course as the girl has a 'lower profile' (or at least did), nobody knows who she has remained in contact with or what input she has made. She removed certain tweets from her account (now closed anyway) but why would you remove anything.....unless it was potentially incriminating?
I think I covered most of that! I just think he was mistaken in trying to pursue all these attempts to appeal like a bulldog. Should have cut his losses ages ago even if he in his heart still feels he is innocent. Then, he'd have had no excuse not to do those things (and I think he could legally do them anyway, with the right wording).
Doesn't matter if he encouraged the harassers or not, they are inevitably linked whether he likes if or not. Only way to change that perception is to publicly disassociate himself from them and ask them to stop. But he won't. So he's stuck where he is and will still be whether he signs for Oldham or not.
But we've been over all this a gazillion times, so I'm out for the night!
I do agree with you that the available CCTV proves nothing, but it certainly shows that she was walking unaided for at least some of the time. Indeed she appears to walk in with McDonald, then walk back out alone before returning and following him to the room.
The online hotel CCTV is heavily edited though so I want to know what's missing and why. It does show her appear to stumble though on one frame. Porter's testimony would have been more important though.
No matter how edited it may be, her walking back out alone in heeled shoes, bending down to pick up the Pizza, turning around and walking back in.......all when described as "extremely drunk".
It's the bending down part i have a problem with as that's precisely the point any "extremely drunk" person is going to end up on the deck. Particularly as prior to this in the Kebab shop she'd been on her arse which figures given the amount she'd consumed.
Maybe she had sobered up a bit more by the time they'd got back to the Hotel.
No matter how edited it may be, her walking back out alone in heeled shoes, bending down to pick up the Pizza, turning around and walking back in.......all when described as "extremely drunk".
It's the bending down part i have a problem with as that's precisely the point any "extremely drunk" person is going to end up on the deck. Particularly as prior to this in the Kebab shop she'd been on her arse which figures given the amount she'd consumed.
Maybe she had sobered up a bit more by the time they'd got back to the Hotel.
OK, just one more for the night!
There are 5 missing seconds when she's on her haunches picking up the pizza. Why? Did she wobble or fall over and was that cut out? There are two 30-ish second gaps for no obvious reason. Was she hanging on to McD? Did she wobble, stagger or fall over? The video as posted does not agree with the porter's evidence, has crucial sections missing and even then shows her appear to stumble. It's useless! But the jury would have seen all the CCTV and would have compared it with what the porter said... so it must have supported it or the defence would have torn him to pieces!
We could of course answer most of these questions if the so-called "balanced" Evans website would upload the court transcripts (redacted as legally required) that they say are 'publicly available'...
I think it's more the other way round. The person who doesn't know her, has never met her before, spends hardly any time with her, and disagrees with his friend about which one of them asked her for consent, cannotreasonably have believed he had consent. But the other guy might, just might have reasonably believed it. Lucky for him!
Pros and cons though. If she was totally incapacitated and unable to consent, then someone spending an hour talking to her should have been able to discern that. If the jury considered his belief was reasonable, then her behaviour was sober enough to convince him she could consent (in which case how on earth can someone else who spent a shorter time be deemed to have unreasonable belief).
I see what you are saying. However, there is an obvious inconsistency in considering someone who spends longer in an incapacitated girl's company to have a more reasonable belief she can consent.
I think I covered most of that! I just think he was mistaken in trying to pursue all these attempts to appeal like a bulldog. Should have cut his losses ages ago even if he in his heart still feels he is innocent. Then, he'd have had no excuse not to do those things (and I think he could legally do them anyway, with the right wording).
If i'm 100% convinced of my innocence then absolutely nothing on planet earth would draw an apology out of me to appease folk just so i can go back to work. In fact i would be demanding an apology and more from my accuser.
Doesn't matter if he encouraged the harassers or not, they are inevitably linked whether he likes if or not. Only way to change that perception is to publicly disassociate himself from them and ask them to stop. But he won't. So he's stuck where he is and will still be whether he signs for Oldham or not.
As i said in the previous post i've not seen anything to suggest Evans encouraging any form of harassment or intimidation of this girl at all. Any that have stepped outside the law have been dealt with. Evans may be a footballer but he isn't God.
There are 5 missing seconds when she's on her haunches picking up the pizza. Why? Did she wobble or fall over and was that cut out?
You and i both know when "extremely drunk", as she was described to be by the Hotel guy, it's a physical impossibility to execute that manoeuvre and recover without falling over. Bending down and then standing back up has to be the worst body movement you can make when p*ssed.....everyone knows that!
If she had fallen over it would need a lot more than 5 seconds cutting out too!!
You and i both know when "extremely drunk", as she was described to be by the Hotel guy, it's a physical impossibility to execute that manoeuvre and recover without falling over. Bending down and then standing back up has to be the worst body movement you can make when p*ssed.....everyone knows that!
If she had fallen over it would need a lot more than 5 seconds cutting out too!!
Oh come on. Some people when extremely drunk get wobbly and fall over easily. Others actually manage to be able to manage manouevres like that. Just because your balance disappears when you get bladdered doesn't mean everyone does.
Anyway it looks like Oldham will be signing Ched - 80% chance.
So much for the vile witch hunt against him.
Oh for god's sake, just stop it. Please ditch this ridiculous hyperbole that Ched Evans has been subject to a "witch hunt" Because signing a few petitions and writing some tweets is really such a terrible thing to be subject to - poor old Ched!
Go look at what his supporters have done to the victim. That's what a real witch hunt is.
Oh for god's sake, just stop it. Please ditch this ridiculous hyperbole that Ched Evans has been subject to a "witch hunt" Because signing a few petitions and writing some tweets is really such a terrible thing to be subject to - poor old Ched!
Go look at what his supporters have done to the victim. That's what a real witch hunt is.
A contrived and concerted effort to block his return to two clubs with an agenda-led campaign is the makings of witch-hunt type mentality.
There are many professions where a convicted rapist would not be allowed to return to their jobs. Teaching, the medical profession, the police force to name but a few. Premier footballers hold a position of prestige and Evans could have handled the whole thing better. how hard would it have been to say 'sorry'?
There are many professions where a convicted rapist would not be allowed to return to their jobs. Teaching, the medical profession, the police force to name but a few. Premier footballers hold a position of prestige and Evans could have handled the whole thing better. how hard would it have been to say 'sorry'?
Would you say sorry if you believed you had been wrongly convicted of something and were in the process of having the Criminal Cases Review Commission look at your case?
A contrived and concerted effort to block his return to two clubs with an agenda-led campaign is the makings of witch-hunt type mentality.
Contrived? Hardly. People are within their rights to voice disapproval that a football club wants to give a convicted rapist an easy way back into life. I'm sorry peaceful protest offends you so much but no one opposed to Evans' return is doing anything wrong.
Comments
Why do you keep saying this? The Bree precedent applies to all cases of this nature because it was heard in the Court of Appeal. The trial judge in Evans' case even quoted the Bree ruling in his summing up.
Yeah but the law has to cover everything, not just alcohol, so it can't be more specific as defendants would use it to escape conviction.
One piece of evidence I keep coming back to is what the night porter said: "when she arrived, she was extremely drunk, had a blank expression on her face, and appeared to be holding onto McDonald for support,"
I think that evidence may be what swung the jury, along with how he appeared as a witness and under cross-examination of course, and him being so close and watching carefully when McD and her walked in. The CCTV as posted online doesn't really prove anything either way but the porter's evidence makes it look pretty bad for both defendants! There were other witnesses too don't forget, and I think the witnesses more than the CCTV got him convicted.
AFAIK the girl was named on Twitter and called numerous not particularly pleasant names. Name calling itself isn't illegal though yes those who named her committed an offence as by then i believe she had been given anonymity. Odd then that those the Police contacted were then each ordered to pay damages to the girl and not fined. I always thought if you commit an offence you get fined (i got fined for doing 32 in a 30 area). Hell i even got fined for over staying my welcome in bloody Dover!
What concerns me on the other side, this vigorous and very vocal campaigning via FB and Twitter to stop any clubs from signing Evans on their books is, like it or not, Evans has served the usual half of his sentence and is now released from Prison.
Under any other circumstance that would be the end of the matter and the ex-prisoner rehabilitated back into civilian life. But in this case the Twitterers decided Evans is not going to work in any Football club.....because they say so.
I haven't read anywhere or heard any suggestions from any quite where and what they suggest Evans do for a living. Perhaps they are happy to contribute to his upkeep via State benefits?
Well there is C, which is that they found she did actually consent to McDonald but not Evans (your B I think presupposes that they found she lacked capacity to consent.
That said, I agree that your B is the most likely reasoning. It is how that decision could possibly be reached on the evidence available I am struggling with. CCTV of her an hour and a half before is well and good but is hardly conclusive evidence and I struggle to see how the night porter's evidence of her being extremely drunk prevents R v. Bree applying.
As for the expert evidence, that seems to have been she would have been no more than 2.5 times over the legal limit by the time Evans arrived. Whilst I have my doubts about the accuracy of her claims on the amount she had to drink, that was the figure the jury had to work with. The most lightweight drinker I know would be no more than slightly tipsy at that sort of level.
* personally I think she must have drunk more than claimed but I again don't see how the jury could ignore her undisputed evidence.
Tricky one, but I think he'd be playing for Shef. Utd right now if he'd played his cards right. Silly fella IMO, it's a pride thing - heart ruling head coupled with not understanding (even now) what legal consent really means.
It'll all die down eventually of course, but won't completely go away unless he publicly apologises to the victim at least for the massive harassment she's having to put up with from his supporters, disassociates himself from the harassers, asks them to stop, and also for not understanding that what he did could be illegal. At the very least.
Again all that tells us is that she was very drunk, also I'd be careful about making assumptions given that McDonald was ultimately acquitted and Evans had not yet arrived at that point.
I do agree with you that the available CCTV proves nothing, but it certainly shows that she was walking unaided for at least some of the time. Indeed she appears to walk in with McDonald, then walk back out alone before returning and following him to the room.
I'd say they probably found her incapable for both of them but gave McD the benefit of the doubt if he argued that he reasonably believed that she could consent. Evans probably couldn't successfully argue that though, due to the manner of his arrival, inconsistencies between the evidence given by the two of them, and the speed he dived in at.
The online hotel CCTV is heavily edited though so I want to know what's missing and why. It does show her appear to stumble though on one frame. Porter's testimony would have been more important though.
It shows McDonald and X entering the hotel, X realises she's left something outside and walks out alone, re-enters the hotel (carrying something?) and follows McDonald presumably to his room. All we can say for certain from it is that she was definitely walking unaided, and had enough of her faculties to realise she had forgotten something.
So we have a situation where the person who spends the longest time with her reasonably (in the jury's view) concludes she can consent? Hard to see much logic there.
I think it's more the other way round. The person who doesn't know her, has never met her before, spends hardly any time with her, and disagrees with his friend about which one of them asked her for consent, cannot reasonably have believed he had consent. But the other guy might, just might have reasonably believed it. Lucky for him!
In fairness d@ve i've not seen anything to suggest Evans has encouraged any intimidation of the girl by his 'camp' and i'm sure he wouldn't even need any of his legal team to advise him not to associate himself with them!
Of course as the girl has a 'lower profile' (or at least did), nobody knows who she has remained in contact with or what input she has made. She removed certain tweets from her account (now closed anyway) but why would you remove anything.....unless it was potentially incriminating?
I think I covered most of that! I just think he was mistaken in trying to pursue all these attempts to appeal like a bulldog. Should have cut his losses ages ago even if he in his heart still feels he is innocent. Then, he'd have had no excuse not to do those things (and I think he could legally do them anyway, with the right wording).
Doesn't matter if he encouraged the harassers or not, they are inevitably linked whether he likes if or not. Only way to change that perception is to publicly disassociate himself from them and ask them to stop. But he won't. So he's stuck where he is and will still be whether he signs for Oldham or not.
But we've been over all this a gazillion times, so I'm out for the night!
It's the bending down part i have a problem with as that's precisely the point any "extremely drunk" person is going to end up on the deck. Particularly as prior to this in the Kebab shop she'd been on her arse which figures given the amount she'd consumed.
Maybe she had sobered up a bit more by the time they'd got back to the Hotel.
OK, just one more for the night!
There are 5 missing seconds when she's on her haunches picking up the pizza. Why? Did she wobble or fall over and was that cut out? There are two 30-ish second gaps for no obvious reason. Was she hanging on to McD? Did she wobble, stagger or fall over? The video as posted does not agree with the porter's evidence, has crucial sections missing and even then shows her appear to stumble. It's useless! But the jury would have seen all the CCTV and would have compared it with what the porter said... so it must have supported it or the defence would have torn him to pieces!
We could of course answer most of these questions if the so-called "balanced" Evans website would upload the court transcripts (redacted as legally required) that they say are 'publicly available'...
Nite!
Pros and cons though. If she was totally incapacitated and unable to consent, then someone spending an hour talking to her should have been able to discern that. If the jury considered his belief was reasonable, then her behaviour was sober enough to convince him she could consent (in which case how on earth can someone else who spent a shorter time be deemed to have unreasonable belief).
I see what you are saying. However, there is an obvious inconsistency in considering someone who spends longer in an incapacitated girl's company to have a more reasonable belief she can consent.
As i said in the previous post i've not seen anything to suggest Evans encouraging any form of harassment or intimidation of this girl at all. Any that have stepped outside the law have been dealt with. Evans may be a footballer but he isn't God.
If she had fallen over it would need a lot more than 5 seconds cutting out too!!
So much for the vile witch hunt against him.
Oh come on. Some people when extremely drunk get wobbly and fall over easily. Others actually manage to be able to manage manouevres like that. Just because your balance disappears when you get bladdered doesn't mean everyone does.
Oh for god's sake, just stop it. Please ditch this ridiculous hyperbole that Ched Evans has been subject to a "witch hunt" Because signing a few petitions and writing some tweets is really such a terrible thing to be subject to - poor old Ched!
Go look at what his supporters have done to the victim. That's what a real witch hunt is.
A contrived and concerted effort to block his return to two clubs with an agenda-led campaign is the makings of witch-hunt type mentality.
It'll make interesting reading if his conviction is overturned!
Would you say sorry if you believed you had been wrongly convicted of something and were in the process of having the Criminal Cases Review Commission look at your case?
Contrived? Hardly. People are within their rights to voice disapproval that a football club wants to give a convicted rapist an easy way back into life. I'm sorry peaceful protest offends you so much but no one opposed to Evans' return is doing anything wrong.