Yes, I've done jury service once at Kingston Crown Court. Two cases, both fairly trivial really, I was surprised they had gone to Crown Court. As you say, there are always one or two who like to take over, and a lot of the rest just want to get away as soon as possible.
We had one guy accused of taking some tools with him when he left the company he had been working for. I suppose he opted for Crown Court on principle, the value of the stuff involved couldn't have been more than a hundred quid. I think everyone felt a bit sorry for him and we found him not guilty. I'm not sure what that says about justice though,
I think that says opt for a Crown Court hearing you have a better chance of a jury believing you than a couple stuck up old judges who have heard it all before.
What is unfortunate with the way this saga has 'ended' [at least for now] is the rape threats towards those associated with Oldham - rape is an abhorrent crime; how can many who are concerned about social attitudes towards rape, use rape threats as a tool to intimidate?!
Because Hatchet and her ilk have been using the anonymity social media gives them to spout their bile and whip up their campaign of hate. I'm not sure if those who previously saw them as 'peaceful' and 'law abiding' campaigners and held them in such high regard have finally now seen the light.
I'm really pleased Gordon Taylor has had the courage and integrity to give his honestly held, reasonable opinion, and not to allow himself to be browbeaten by the morons who are now issuing threats against anybody who dares to disagree with their opinion.
Well said, Gordon. I stand and applaud your honesty Sir.
Because the jury decided because the other had spent more time with her (which I would think would mean he should have been able to realise she wasn't able to consent) so had 'reasonable belief' she did consent to him. I find it strange too but that's just the way it goes.
I think it is probably down to McDonald thinking she was OK to consent (even though she wasn't), whereas Evans had only just arrived so was unable to come to any judgement, but went ahead and had sex anyway. However, we will never know for certain, because the jury do not tell us how and why they came to the decision they did. It could just as well have been as Idlewilde suggested a couple of posts before yours, ie that they were teaching footballers a lesson for past indiscretions. I hope that wasn't the case, but we'll never know for certain.
Don't make that assumption. I've sat on a jury and believe me it made me terrified at the prospect of ever being at the mercy of one in the future.
All you need is one or two strong and pompous jurors with an agenda, and the sheeple types will follow suit. It was genuinely a scary experience.
It is the system we have though I suppose, and we haven't come up with a better one.
Maybe there's a case for a court appointed mediator, to monitor the way juries reach their decision, to make sure they are meeting their responsibilities in the way they address the case.
But back to the case...
I think that the fact that the jury came to two different verdicts does give me some confidence that they undertook their responsibilities in a serious and careful manner. It would have been very easy to come to the same verdict for both (whichever way) but they must have considered each case on its merits to reach separate conclusions, IMO.
I think that says opt for a Crown Court hearing you have a better chance of a jury believing you than a couple stuck up old judges who have heard it all before.
If I had the option (and in many cases you don't now as more and more offences are being classified as summary), I would always opt for a jury trial. This isn't because of 'stuck up judges' (who I generally respect) but because of magistrates who aren't legally qualified and tend to the more 'punitive'.
If I had the option (and in many cases you don't now as more and more offences are being classified as summary), I would always opt for a jury trial. This isn't because of 'stuck up judges' (who I generally respect) but because of magistrates who aren't legally qualified and tend to the more 'punitive'.
I got busted for a minor offence many years ago, and the magistrates on the bench were so stereotypical, it was all I could do to reign in the smirk. The guy sat in the middle was your typical grey-bearded, half-rimmed-glasses-wearing sixty-odd year old, and he was flanked by two sour-faced schoolma'am types. I could feel their eyes literally boring into me as he spoke.
They were pretty lenient with me though in fairness.
I've just read Gordon Taylors comments about Ched Evans, and then I read that people are calling for him to be sacked......
This is going beyond a joke now! Not just this case, but so many times I'm seeing in the media, someone saying something not to someone elses taste, and suddenly they have to - resign/be sacked/emigrate/grovel and apologise or a mix of them all!
And people on Facebook/twitter saying such exaggerated terms such as "absolutely disgusting", basically are well over the top. Are we all growing into precious little daisies now?
I've just read Gordon Taylors comments about Ched Evans, and then I read that people are calling for him to be sacked......
This is going beyond a joke now! Not just this case, but so many times I'm seeing in the media, someone saying something not to someone elses taste, and suddenly they have to - resign/be sacked/emigrate/grovel and apologise or a mix of them all!
And people on Facebook/twitter saying such exaggerated terms such as "absolutely disgusting", basically are well over the top. Are we all growing into precious little daisies now?
Twitter membership ought to come with an IQ test when signing up.
I got berated last night for being a "rapist apologist" and being "anti feminist" by a couple of young females on Twitter last night for having the audacity to disagree with the campaign
I got berated last night for being a "rapist apologist" and being "anti feminist" by a couple of young females on Twitter last night for having the audacity to disagree with the campaign
The people who are getting outraged over this, are probably people with nothing better to do with their time! Probably like to be part of a following, and have no interest in football or justice....
It seems to me less like a campaign and more like a witchhunt.
It just makes it worse because although he's been convicted of rape, the case has so many grey áreas and holes in it, that to me it doesn't stand up.
It's just people jumping on a bandwagon and Twitter has got a lot to answer for....
What I care about is whether this young lady was aware of Evans being there in the hotel room, was conscious, was lucid, knew where she was, who she was with, wasn't restrained, wasn't coerced, threatened or forced, and wasn't tricked or deceived.
If that was the case, all the surrounding stuff is a massive red herring, to paint this image of some callous night stalker, who creeps in your bedroom at night to ravage you against your will, before creeping out again.
Doesn't that “surrounding stuff” have quite a lot of relevance to your first point, though?
Think about it the other way round: the girl was the one to invite Evans to the hotel room, not McDonald, and she also got up to let him into the room so he didn’t have to lie to get a key card. Now technically, that doesn’t mean to say Evans didn’t rape her – obviously simply inviting him into the room doesn’t constitute an agreement to have sex with him – but I have no doubt a jury considering that situation would have been influenced by those facts and would have acquitted Evans.
That “surrounding stuff” is relevant in so far as it gives an indication as to whether or not the girl consented (or more accurately, whether Evans might reasonably have believed she did), and combined with the jury’s decision that she was too drunk to give consent, is obviously why they convicted Evans.
What puzzles me is how Evans can be quite so sure himself that he’s “innocent” as he insists – how does he know the girl wasn’t too drunk to consent, given that he (supposedly) spoke to her just once before having sex with her? Even if she actually had been sober enough to consent, that would just have been Evans’ good luck; he couldn’t have known that at the time.
Doesn't that “surrounding stuff” have quite a lot of relevance to your first point, though?
Think about it the other way round: the girl was the one to invite Evans to the hotel room, not McDonald, and she also got up to let him into the room so he didn’t have to lie to get a key card. Now technically, that doesn’t mean to say Evans didn’t rape her – obviously simply inviting him into the room doesn’t constitute an agreement to have sex with him – but I have no doubt a jury considering that situation would have been influenced by those facts and would have acquitted Evans.
I would stand fast to the idea, because I don't believe an invite to a hotel room should be considered as an automatic green light to any sexual activity going on in the room. Husbands can be guilty of raping the wives who share their beds. I think that McDonald was actually cleared along the lines of this presumption, and I have previously said in this thread that I am very surprised more people (especially women) aren't infuriated by that apparently presumptuous conclusion.
That “surrounding stuff” is relevant in so far as it gives an indication as to whether or not the girl consented (or more accurately, whether Evans might reasonably have believed she did), and combined with the jury’s decision that she was too drunk to give consent, is obviously why they convicted Evans.
What puzzles me is how Evans can be quite so sure himself that he’s “innocent” as he insists – how does he know the girl wasn’t too drunk to consent, given that he (supposedly) spoke to her just once before having sex with her? Even if she actually had been sober enough to consent, that would just have been Evans’ good luck; he couldn’t have known that at the time.
How does anyone know? The question is, how would he be supposed to know? If you meet somebody, ask them can you have sex with them, they agree, and you begin, by the time you have realised that they're perhaps a bit too sozzled you may have already "raped" them, technically. On the other hand, your perception of them might be that they're okay, as he asserted. Good luck rather than good judgment is probably what gets thousands of similar couples through the weekends in Britain.
I guess more care should perhaps be taken, those "steps" that the law seems to think people must undertake. But these are drunk, rather reckless young people, and hindsight is a wonderful thing.
The reasonable belief was evaluated by a bunch of people in the cold light of day who had to apply their own code of morals to it in my book, a subjective opinion.
My question is why did this young girl go to a hotel with Evans in the first place. Did she think they were going to have a game of cards.
Don't get me wrong that didn't give him the right to rape her and if he did, then he deserves everything he gets but surely her decision to go with him was sending out the wrong signals.
She never went to the hotel with Evans. McDonald took her to the hotel. He then texted Evans to say he 'got a bird'. Evans then went to the hotel.
My son posed a difficult question for me yesterday. He asked if I would be happy for Ched Evens to play for our team. This caused me to really question my views on the matter. I'm a big believer in our justice system. It's not perfect but I feel it's probably as good as any system can be. So that means anyone who has served their time MUST be free to return to society with their debt paid. However I am also of the view that I would not want Ched Evens or any other rapist playing for my team.
So how do I square that circle?
In the end I could only come up with the view that I wouldn't want a cheat playing for my club or that I wouldn't want a thug playing for my club. Suarez came to mind. However, I would never complain, other than to friends, and I would never get involved in any campaign to prevent the signing. Reluctantly I had to accept that if my club signed a rapist I would have to accept that even if I didn't agree with it.
I must say that it was a very difficult question to ask myself and an answer that I'm really not 100% happy about.
The malevolence of the social justice movement is out in force over Gordon Taylor I see.
Steve Bruce will be next as apparently he's put in his 2 penn'th. No doubt there'll be calls for him to be sacked. Although considering Hull's position in the league, he might be on his way soon, anyway.
Steve Bruce will be next as apparently he's put in his 2 penn'th. No doubt there'll be calls for him to be sacked. Although considering Hull's position in the league, he might be on his way soon, anyway.
I would stand fast to the idea, because I don't believe an invite to a hotel room should be considered as an automatic green light to any sexual activity going on in the room. Husbands can be guilty of raping the wives who share their beds. I think that McDonald was actually cleared along the lines of this presumption, and I have previously said in this thread that I am very surprised more people (especially women) aren't infuriated by that apparently presumptuous conclusion.
No, of course an invite to a hotel room isn't an "automatic green light" to sexual activity, and I agree that the key issue is whether, at the moment in which they started having sex, she consented. However as no jury in any rape case has direct insight into the woman's exact state of mind, they have to make a judgment based on the same surrounding factors you're dismissing as irrelevant. To do otherwise would mean there would be no rape convictions at all.
To acquit Evans in the circumstances I described wouldn't be to accept that inviting someone into a hotel room is a "green light" for sex, it would be to accept that the standards for a criminal conviction are very high and especially difficult to meet in a rape case, and therefore to accept that there is a possibility (even a small one) that the woman consented. The jury didn't acquit McDonald because they thought he was innocent necessarily; it may very well have been that they thought he was probably guilty too, but accepted the small possibility that he wasn't.
How does anyone know? The question is, how would he be supposed to know? If you meet somebody, ask them can you have sex with them, they agree, and you begin, by the time you have realised that they're perhaps a bit too sozzled you may have already "raped" them, technically. On the other hand, your perception of them might be that they're okay, as he asserted. Good luck rather than good judgment is probably what gets thousands of similar couples through the weekends in Britain.
I guess more care should perhaps be taken, those "steps" that the law seems to think people must undertake. But these are drunk, rather reckless young people, and hindsight is a wonderful thing.
The reasonable belief was evaluated by a bunch of people in the cold light of day who had to apply their own code of morals to it in my book, a subjective opinion.
Evans took a huge risk - he had sex with a woman he'd never seen before, no doubt knowing she was drunk but having no idea just how drunk she was. It may well be that 95 times out of 100 there would have been no problem, and that the woman was sober, or sober enough. But in this case the jury had footage and other evidence to show that she was extremely drunk and, in their judgment, not capable of consenting. Once they'd decided that, Evans needed to show that he could have had the reasonable belief she consented, and he couldn't, because he barely spoke to her before beginning to have sex with her. Like it or not, legally that's rape.
The lesson here is that if you take a risk, as Evans did, and don't make sure the person you're having sex with is capable of consenting, if it turns out there's evidence to show she wasn't capable of consenting you're in trouble. Evans would've been OK if, like McDonald, he'd been able to point to some sort of interaction beforehand - if they'd had a conversation or physical contact previously, the jury may well have given him the benefit of the doubt. I think it's the fact that Evans had no contact with her beforehand, and therefore no reason to think she would consent to sex with him specifically, which led the jury to find him guilty.
Yes. Charlie Webster is saying how Oldham have made the moral decision but hasn't decided to say that it's a result of threats of rape, the very thing she's saying needs to be kept out of football.
Interesting that the police say that have not been formally informed of any threats of rape? Apologies if that has now changed.
Anyone just watch Sky Sports News? I posted it in the other Evans thread but it's worth putting it here too.
The first point is that in amongst all the furore surrounding Taylor he has also said he "believes the Criminal Case Review could be concluded by March or April." The Review began examining the Case in early December so that's significantly shorter than the "up to 35 weeks" that was initially commented as a possible timeframe. So that's interesting.
The Sky correspondent then talked about what the Criminal Case Review Commission is and stated about the small 3% of cases that are successful in getting to the Court of Appeal which we have already seen stated here. The interesting part was when they said they questioned the CCRC on why the case has been prioritised, he said this:
The CCRC have stressed the fast-tracking of the Evans case has nothing to do with his being a footballer or a celebrity, or the fact there is such public interest in the story.
However, when asked by Sky Sports News HQ whether it was down to “sound legal reasons”, a spokesman said “yes”.
VERY interesting.
Comments
I think that says opt for a Crown Court hearing you have a better chance of a jury believing you than a couple stuck up old judges who have heard it all before.
intimidation at its best, not very nice people at all
Im starting to wonder if its all just one big witch hunt
It has been from day one.
Well said, Gordon. I stand and applaud your honesty Sir.
I think it is probably down to McDonald thinking she was OK to consent (even though she wasn't), whereas Evans had only just arrived so was unable to come to any judgement, but went ahead and had sex anyway. However, we will never know for certain, because the jury do not tell us how and why they came to the decision they did. It could just as well have been as Idlewilde suggested a couple of posts before yours, ie that they were teaching footballers a lesson for past indiscretions. I hope that wasn't the case, but we'll never know for certain.
Maybe there's a case for a court appointed mediator, to monitor the way juries reach their decision, to make sure they are meeting their responsibilities in the way they address the case.
But back to the case...
I think that the fact that the jury came to two different verdicts does give me some confidence that they undertook their responsibilities in a serious and careful manner. It would have been very easy to come to the same verdict for both (whichever way) but they must have considered each case on its merits to reach separate conclusions, IMO.
If I had the option (and in many cases you don't now as more and more offences are being classified as summary), I would always opt for a jury trial. This isn't because of 'stuck up judges' (who I generally respect) but because of magistrates who aren't legally qualified and tend to the more 'punitive'.
I got busted for a minor offence many years ago, and the magistrates on the bench were so stereotypical, it was all I could do to reign in the smirk. The guy sat in the middle was your typical grey-bearded, half-rimmed-glasses-wearing sixty-odd year old, and he was flanked by two sour-faced schoolma'am types. I could feel their eyes literally boring into me as he spoke.
They were pretty lenient with me though in fairness.
This is going beyond a joke now! Not just this case, but so many times I'm seeing in the media, someone saying something not to someone elses taste, and suddenly they have to - resign/be sacked/emigrate/grovel and apologise or a mix of them all!
And people on Facebook/twitter saying such exaggerated terms such as "absolutely disgusting", basically are well over the top. Are we all growing into precious little daisies now?
Twitter membership ought to come with an IQ test when signing up.
Be about 10 members then
It's a shame all the people who arnt outraged don't start a petition
It seems to me less like a campaign and more like a witchhunt.
It just makes it worse because although he's been convicted of rape, the case has so many grey áreas and holes in it, that to me it doesn't stand up.
It's just people jumping on a bandwagon and Twitter has got a lot to answer for....
Doesn't that “surrounding stuff” have quite a lot of relevance to your first point, though?
Think about it the other way round: the girl was the one to invite Evans to the hotel room, not McDonald, and she also got up to let him into the room so he didn’t have to lie to get a key card. Now technically, that doesn’t mean to say Evans didn’t rape her – obviously simply inviting him into the room doesn’t constitute an agreement to have sex with him – but I have no doubt a jury considering that situation would have been influenced by those facts and would have acquitted Evans.
That “surrounding stuff” is relevant in so far as it gives an indication as to whether or not the girl consented (or more accurately, whether Evans might reasonably have believed she did), and combined with the jury’s decision that she was too drunk to give consent, is obviously why they convicted Evans.
What puzzles me is how Evans can be quite so sure himself that he’s “innocent” as he insists – how does he know the girl wasn’t too drunk to consent, given that he (supposedly) spoke to her just once before having sex with her? Even if she actually had been sober enough to consent, that would just have been Evans’ good luck; he couldn’t have known that at the time.
I would stand fast to the idea, because I don't believe an invite to a hotel room should be considered as an automatic green light to any sexual activity going on in the room. Husbands can be guilty of raping the wives who share their beds. I think that McDonald was actually cleared along the lines of this presumption, and I have previously said in this thread that I am very surprised more people (especially women) aren't infuriated by that apparently presumptuous conclusion.
How does anyone know? The question is, how would he be supposed to know? If you meet somebody, ask them can you have sex with them, they agree, and you begin, by the time you have realised that they're perhaps a bit too sozzled you may have already "raped" them, technically. On the other hand, your perception of them might be that they're okay, as he asserted. Good luck rather than good judgment is probably what gets thousands of similar couples through the weekends in Britain.
I guess more care should perhaps be taken, those "steps" that the law seems to think people must undertake. But these are drunk, rather reckless young people, and hindsight is a wonderful thing.
The reasonable belief was evaluated by a bunch of people in the cold light of day who had to apply their own code of morals to it in my book, a subjective opinion.
So how do I square that circle?
In the end I could only come up with the view that I wouldn't want a cheat playing for my club or that I wouldn't want a thug playing for my club. Suarez came to mind. However, I would never complain, other than to friends, and I would never get involved in any campaign to prevent the signing. Reluctantly I had to accept that if my club signed a rapist I would have to accept that even if I didn't agree with it.
I must say that it was a very difficult question to ask myself and an answer that I'm really not 100% happy about.
Steve Bruce will be next as apparently he's put in his 2 penn'th. No doubt there'll be calls for him to be sacked. Although considering Hull's position in the league, he might be on his way soon, anyway.
He does make a reasonable point :
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30742947
Is that the sound of pitchforks being sharpened I can hear ?
To acquit Evans in the circumstances I described wouldn't be to accept that inviting someone into a hotel room is a "green light" for sex, it would be to accept that the standards for a criminal conviction are very high and especially difficult to meet in a rape case, and therefore to accept that there is a possibility (even a small one) that the woman consented. The jury didn't acquit McDonald because they thought he was innocent necessarily; it may very well have been that they thought he was probably guilty too, but accepted the small possibility that he wasn't.
Evans took a huge risk - he had sex with a woman he'd never seen before, no doubt knowing she was drunk but having no idea just how drunk she was. It may well be that 95 times out of 100 there would have been no problem, and that the woman was sober, or sober enough. But in this case the jury had footage and other evidence to show that she was extremely drunk and, in their judgment, not capable of consenting. Once they'd decided that, Evans needed to show that he could have had the reasonable belief she consented, and he couldn't, because he barely spoke to her before beginning to have sex with her. Like it or not, legally that's rape.
The lesson here is that if you take a risk, as Evans did, and don't make sure the person you're having sex with is capable of consenting, if it turns out there's evidence to show she wasn't capable of consenting you're in trouble. Evans would've been OK if, like McDonald, he'd been able to point to some sort of interaction beforehand - if they'd had a conversation or physical contact previously, the jury may well have given him the benefit of the doubt. I think it's the fact that Evans had no contact with her beforehand, and therefore no reason to think she would consent to sex with him specifically, which led the jury to find him guilty.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/11334853/What-is-Ched-Evanss-future-father-in-law-playing-at.html
Interesting that the police say that have not been formally informed of any threats of rape? Apologies if that has now changed.
The first point is that in amongst all the furore surrounding Taylor he has also said he "believes the Criminal Case Review could be concluded by March or April." The Review began examining the Case in early December so that's significantly shorter than the "up to 35 weeks" that was initially commented as a possible timeframe. So that's interesting.
The Sky correspondent then talked about what the Criminal Case Review Commission is and stated about the small 3% of cases that are successful in getting to the Court of Appeal which we have already seen stated here. The interesting part was when they said they questioned the CCRC on why the case has been prioritised, he said this:
The CCRC have stressed the fast-tracking of the Evans case has nothing to do with his being a footballer or a celebrity, or the fact there is such public interest in the story.
However, when asked by Sky Sports News HQ whether it was down to “sound legal reasons”, a spokesman said “yes”.
VERY interesting.