He appealed and had his conviction overturned. Chad Evans never had a succesful appeal. If he was not guilty, he would have appealed.
He has appealed, a few times, however he has failed based on what he is using in the appeal. You see there is no evidence which can be used to support his side of the story, its all based on expert opinions. Same as the conviction is all based on her claiming memory loss, and cctv footage that show her as being drunk. The only reason McDonald got off is because they reckon he was given consent whilst in town, after they left the club (the same club they reckon she drunk herself to a point of being too drunk to consent I might add), and that he was genuinely under the impression eh could have sex with her. From there they went to a kebab shop, don't think she drunk any more whilst there, from there they got in a taxi, don't think the taxi driver would be selling her booze, and from there to the hotel, where the premier inn don't have mini bars to the best of my knowledge. So at which point did she become too drunk to consent? Must have been after she gave consent to McDonald right, after all he got off with it. So where did she drink more? Basically what this case meant, was that from now on, if you are going to town, don't bother pulling a girl and going for a 1 night stand, because you can be convicted of rape if she wakes up the next morning and claims she forgot about it. Utter bullshit. And I will stand by that opinion as the case itself was a joke.
Also in regards to Barry George's appeal, it took numerous appeals before he was acquitted. He was sentenced in 2001 and the conviction was not overturned until 2008. 7 years it took him. The biggest stinker for me, is that he was deemed "guilty" to be sent to prison for 7 years. Fair enough. An appeal found him "innocent enough" to acquit him. So therefore he is now deemed innocent. But they deemed him "not innocent enough" to be awarded compensation for wrongful imprisonment. Work that one out, thats our justice system for you. They don't even believe it themselves, why else would they refuse to award compensation to a guy that our own justice system claimed was wrongfully imprisoned. And claim he wasn't innocent enough. Well the justice system says otherwise and thats why they released him. There is no "enough" about it.
Evans can only appeal a conviction from a Crown Court to the Court of Appeal if if said conviction is believed to be 'unsafe and unsatisfactory'. Evans and his lawyers didn't appeal as afar as I'm aware so there must be a good reason for that imo. Whatever, he's stuck with it. George's conviction was appealed on the basis of questionable forensic evidence. If you remember he was almost entirely convicted on minute traces of gunpowder residue on his clothing which apparently anyone can pick up from bank notes and so on. Hence the conviction was correctly deemed 'unsafe and unsatisfactory'. Swansealona, you are correct when you said: "Basically what this case meant, was that from now on, if you are going to town, don't bother pulling a girl and going for a 1 night stand, because you can be convicted of rape if she wakes up the next morning and claims she forgot about it." Since the change in the law us guys have to be very very careful. Last year two men were acquitted on this very point locally in the Crown Court because the jury saw it for what it was - a woman who got pissed then woke up and regretted her actions, making a complaint of rape. Fact is those men's lives will forever be tainted.
And its why the law as it stands stinks to high heaven, in cases of rape the accuser is anonymous, and the name kept out of the public eye, but the accused has their name tarnished, and in all the papers. Also in regards to Evans, it was grounds for appeal, which was turned down. My apologies. Taken from: https://www.crimeline.info/case/r-v-ched-evans-chedwyn-evans From the original trial: From the grounds of appeal: There was also a witness who was part of the grounds of appeal which said this about the girl: On another note, it was mentioned earlier in the thread that early parole was granted only if they admitted guilt, that changed a few years back, as it meant that those who were in-fact innocent, wrongly convicted, and refused to admit guilt were not eligible for parole.
....but a criminal cannot 'Pay their dues' in this situation in reality. Whilst he has completed the prison sentence handed to him, he still remains a rapist, and his victim still remains raped and will do for the rest of her life. Prison doesn't erase what happened for the victim.
From reading the postings on this page, I gather that she had a loss of memory. This suggests therefore that she is not able to act as her own witness since a lack of memory precludes her stating whether she gave consent or denied consent. The accused has a right to face his accuser and cross-examine ... but cross-examine what in this case, she has no incriminating testimony to give since the case pivots about consent or the lack thereof - nobody is denying there was sex. For some expert to extrapolate a hypothetical - that she was in no condition to consent - based on a presumed but un-measured blood alcohol level is the worst kind of fabrication - this is not evidence and should never be considered evidence. It's basically a statement of faith unless said expert can, at the very least, take the accuser and simulate the conditions of that night, the amount (if documented) that was drank, in the exact mixture and amount of alcohol drank, in the the correct time sequence, matched with food consumption and urinary output and then make some meaningful measurements of blood alcohol level and run tests of the accuser's capacity to make decisions, which the defense could then rebut. What am I missing.
Well Stereo, our system allows for prisoners to do their time then be released on licence, as Evans is. If you're advocating the payment of huge amounts of compensation to this 'victim' then that will encourage more cases that are completely fabricated imo.
Would you want a young Sheffield United supporting a rapist? His name on the back of their shirt? Or do you take the view of a few on here that, as a woman, her testimony was false and no offence took place? Perhaps those who believe the woman was lying should insist on having witnesses as proof!
"For some expert to extrapolate a hypothetical - that she was in no condition to consent - based on a presumed but un-measured blood alcohol level is the worst kind of fabrication - this is not evidence and should never be considered evidence. " Expert witness IS evidence. If it was truly in dispute a wealthy defendant could easily have provided his own expert testimony to counter that of the prosecution. Sex with someone incapable of providing consent is rape. Successful convictions for rape in the UK are incredibly low, if there was doubt there would have been no conviction. Guilty as charged and has failed to overturn the conviction. Despite not showing remorse for his crime he's been allowed out early. Allowing this man to return to work as a professional footballer sends a very strong message to the public ... women are worth very little, use them as you will and if that means a few months in chokey don't worry just carry on where you left off.
Bob an expert that testifies to an analysis of rebutable facts is one thing, but other than anecdotal evidence she was drunk there is nothing on the record (I presume) that states the degree to which she was drunk (e.g. blood alcohol level) that could at the very least have been used in a "look up" table to say that an average person has this degree of decision making capacity at this or that blah, blah, blah. What was the person an expert of exactly - wishful thinking? There is no way based on what was said above that an expert, any expert, could say with any degree of confidence the degree to which she was intoxicated and therefore make so much as a guess as to the degree to which her decision making was compromised. Guesses are not or should be testimony.
I find the whole case a farce, after all the tart was high on alcohol and drugs, consented to sex at the hotel, even the night porter heard her say, 'Your not going to leave me in the room on my own'? there is no consideration in the evidence of her own stupid folly in all this, and I am staggered such a case came to trial, the tart is lucky that she bumped into these lads, because she could have easily fallen pray to a more predatory and criminally experience group of males that would really have given her something she would never ever forget, how the hell she was never gang raped in some allyway was pure good fortune. I have on occasions driven through Swansea in the early hours of the morning, returning home from a vacation abroad, only to be staggered by the dress or the lack of it, and the drunken condition of numerous females who while rolling around on the floor, exhibiting next weeks washing and tits hanging out, these girls are asking for trouble in my view, and I have no sympathy when it gives them a good shake down!...............
Nothing, there is no rape case to answer in my view, and I was staggered that he was convicted, while his friend was not!...............
is it just professional football you want to exclude him from? would it be ok for him to go into coaching? is he allowed to work any more? does he have to go on the dole for the rest of his life, otherwise that means 'women are worth very little'? letting someone continue with their lives and in extension, support himself financially, having served what a judge rules as a proportionate amount of time in jail, does not mean that you have no regard for the victim. do you think evans has learnt his lesson? he's had plenty of time to reevaluate his life in his cell. by the way, if you allow football to govern your childs morals, then you are failing as a parent and not taking responsibility. allowing him to return to plying his trade does not mean you agree with the mistake he made. ostracising criminals from society usually just ensures they have no option but to carry on committing crime.
I have no issue with him returning to the game, I actually feel sorry for the lad, who through inexperience has got caught up with a street tart, and got burnt, I'm sure he has had plenty of time in prison to consider the stupidity of his actions.
Looks like I'm with the majority here. Bob: "Despite not showing remorse for his crime he's been allowed out early." Firstly, you don't know that. Secondly it's not a prerequisite for early release. No problem with different opinions but at least get your fact right. I think you expect youexpect the guy to wear sackcloth and ashes for the rest of his life and scrabble around on all fours. For ****'s sake we live in a modern democracy not Saudi Arabia. Out there you're stoned to death for being gay. Maybe that's the sort of society you want.
Sorry to have disappointed you but if you insist on insulting me I will always just reply in kind. Dont really want to go through all of the above points about drug dealers so I will keep it relatively short and simple. The question was should he be allowed to play again. I said no and qualified it due to the seriousness of the conviction and everything that goes with it (offenders register etc). I defended that point by advocating that although being on the register doesn't preclude footballers convicted of sexual offences from staying in that profession it should. You disagree great. Rape is rape supply is supply murder is murder and so on. The jury decide (and if in your experience the public are intelligent enough to judge degrees once they know the circumstances) then I guess the public spoke in this instance and used that intelligence to find the guy guilty, after all they have ALL the facts of the case. That my friend is good enough for me, the public found him guilty the judge passed sentence which could have been anything from 4 to 8 years. He got 5 didnt he? single offence, first time offender previous good character but still a rapist and that is all she wrote.
