There is a limit, there was an article about it a while back, it might even be somewhere on this thread.
Footballer Ched Evans has pleaded not guilty to rape at Cardiff Crown Court and is set for a trial in October this year. These things take far too long.
It's ridiculous. Given that the High Court have quashed his conviction, then the fresh evidence must be compelling, which in turn should make the re-trial a virtual formality. If (as expected) he's found not guilty, then the guy has had his life ruined for nothing, the least they could do in this circumstance is fast track the case and get it over and done with. Once he's cleared the CPS and the coppers who originally brought the charge should be made to explain their stance on this case, as I've said from the off it was his status as a footballer that was behind the prosecution. A 'victim' who made no claim of rape, merely memory loss and the bloke himself openly admitting to having had sex with her, was literally all they had. If he'd have been a brickie from Ryhl this case would have never made it to court imo.
It wasn't all they had. They also had the statements from MacDonald and the fact that Evans admitted he would lie to get his own way.
No victim claim No forensic No injuries Do you really think they'd have brought that case if it'd have been a brickie and his mate from Rhyl? Yes or No?
So rape isn't rape unless she can remember whether she gave consent or not? So rape isn't rape unless she gets battered around a bit? He admitted having sex with her so the only question was whether she consented. There was forensic evidence as to the state she was in at the time. Do you really think a brickie and his mate from Rhyl shouldn't be charged with rape just because they're not as famous or rich as Ched Evans? The answer to your question is probably not.
Ched Evans is probably more famous for being a convicted rapist, than he would have been as a footballer. No idea what that means in the great scheme of things mind, I just thought I'd toss it in.
It's the same old tired argument which was wrong back then and is wrong now, but at least the legal system has recognised that and ordered a retrial, after quashing the previous judgement. Let's await the outcome of the trial and you can continue your support for him serving a prison sentence then, or maybe . . .
As they're ordering a retrial, rather than dropping charges, it appears who ever reviewed it feels there's at least the probability.
OLM said if there was no evidence of a crime he shouldn't have been tried. The police thought there was evidence and the jury agreed. The Court of Appeal also think there is evidence otherwise they wouldn't have ordered a retrial. They could have just quashed the conviction without having another trial.
Since the findings behind the outcome of his appeal are not in the public domain we don't know if the retrial is a face saving exercise for the CPS etc (which would be a scandal) or whether the grounds for his original trial remain valid. Time will tell.
