Got to disagree with you. It's his opinion, his personal view, which he makes clear. It would seem you all agree we should capitulate our own thoughts to the silence of the lambs and only exist with opinions as anonymous keyboard warriors. Quite sad really that having an opinion seems to infer a backlash.
Has he actually had any appeals, Obi or has he only applied for the right of appeal and been refused?
The evidence was tested at the court of appeal as is clear from the transcript. Evans even introduced further expert testimony. The three appeal court judges decided that there wasn't enough to grant leave to appeal and it was refused. As was the appeal to have his sentence reduced.
I said at the time that Cameron was a buffon for making that comment as he used his public office; something Steve Bruce has not done.
What is an appeal? Our system of justice tries to reduce the costs of administering justice. So a convicted criminal has to apply for leave to appeal. That is considered by a judge who decides whether the decision is likely to be overturned. If the judge decides that it will be a waste of time and money he or she decides whether to allow the appeal. If he turns it down the person has the right to appeal that decision and the matter is looked at by three appeal court judges. In Evans case the first judge turned him down. He then appealed to the Court of Appeal and argued the decision wasn't fair because MacDonald got off, presented new medical evidence and questioned the judge's directions. The three Appeal Court judges weren't convinced and turned down his appeal. You may think that is wrong, but its how our justice system works. You may think that convicted criminals should have the automatic right to appeal but that's a different matter. In Evans case he has had two appeals to try and overturn his conviction and lost both of them.
This is why those affirming his guilt by stating his appeals have been turned down are fundamentally wrong. The judge could believe the guilty verdict is dodgy, but he will not grant an appeal unless he believes a re-trial on the current or additional evidence has a good chance of changing the verdict. Obviously they don't believe anything would change with the current evidence and Evans couldn't provide enough new evidence to convince them otherwise. The judge isn't there to make a decision on the subject of the appeals guilt, they are deciding if it is necessary and worthwhile to grant a re-trial.
I have eventually settled my view and returned to totally agree with this, with the addition that I believe he should be allowed to train as retaining professional fitness is difficult. It would be for a period less than that taken over the injury of Snodgrass , so quite reasonable. He should have continued training at SU and the arguments over when he should recommence with a club could have been held privately, which would have been better for all concerned.
This is what the three Court of Appeal judges said: "We can see no possible basis which would justify us to interfere with the verdict of the jury which heard all the evidence and reflected on it following a careful summing up by the judge." I think that is fairly conclusive. They consider the evidence present, the new evidence provided by Evans and the judge's instructions to the jury.
I don't think Hat is saying anything other than he is still serving his sentence, the part of it that gives him controlled liberty - I don't believe he is expressing an issue with that.
what attualy happened that night he aint served his time at all, do you think watching tv for a couple of years is justice for what he did, not being able to work that should be the real punishment[/QUOTE] Stupidity should be a crime. That way you wouldnt be here to post such tripe.
Exactly, they don't believe on the current/new evidence there would be a good enough chance to overturn the conviction to sanction another court case. This in no way implies they think Evans is guilty, merely that if the trial went ahead with the current evidence they are not convinced a jury would change the verdict.
Stupidity should be a crime. That way you wouldnt be here to post such tripe.[/QUOTE] just imagine the chants if he does play again, he rapes to the left he rapes to the right, ched evens rapes 10 birds a night
You're going off on one again! I have not said anything is wrong, try rereading what I wrote. He has applied for leave to appeal - he was not granted that appeal, ergo, he has not had an appeal. He applied for appeal to have his term sentence reduced and that was refused, but I think you know that is not what I was referring to, as that cannot overturn the verdict. I don't know if you are being deliberately obtuse, but . . .
[/QUOTE]just imagine the chants if he does play again, he rapes to the left he rapes to the right, ched evens rapes 10 birds a night[/QUOTE] In the absence of dislike & bad rep buttons I'll just have to come out & say it. You're a moronic ****.
You are quoting things from one process and attributing them to another, the one the first is sitting to decide whether or not to allow.
It wouldn't go back to trial, the evidence and any new evidence would be considered by Court of Appeal judges. The Court of Appeal decided that another set of Court of Appeal judges would still find him guilty so they refused leave to appeal. He started out guilty and they decided he should remain guilty which was the consequence of them refusing leave. If they believed him innocent they would have granted leave.
Do you think the MacDonald case was dealt with fairly because you agreed with the result and because you don't agree with the Evans result you feel he wasn't dealt with fairly? Just asking.
He applied for leave to appeal. His application was heard by a single judge and refused. By putting in an application he was making an appeal against his conviction. The first step in that process was refused. He then appealed against the decision to refuse him leave to appeal which was considered by three judges. This was his second attempt to get his conviction squashed. The three judges looked at the evidence presented to the jury to consider whether the decision to acquit MacDonald and convict Evans was irrational. They decided that the decisions of the jury weren't irrational and presented no grounds for appeal. They also considered the judges directions and the additional medical evidence presented by Evans. After considering all that they decided to refuse leave to appeal knowing that he would remain a convicted rapist. As part of this hearing Evans asked for his sentence to be reduced, that was also refused. Evans in trying to overturn his conviction has had two hearings before 4 judges. I consider them appeals but if you want to be pedantic then you are right. On the evidence provided the justice system didn't think he deserved an appeal. I don't know where that gets you though unless you think every convicted criminal who pleaded not guilty should have an automatic right to a full Court of Appeal hearing to overturn their conviction.
