Footballer jailed 5 years for Rape

[sinequanon]

The merely says that there were similarities with her previous behaviour. It doesn't explain why that is relevant. She could have been too drunk to consent and still have acted in a similar way.

The Criminal Cases Review Commission considered it relevant so referred it to the Court of Appeal. The Appeal Court considered it relevant and quashed the conviction. A judge considered it relevant to rule it admissible. A jury acquitted him on the basis of that relevant evidence. All these people were wrong and you are right. OK.

You still haven't explained why similarity of behaviour would mean consent. She could have been totally drunk with the same similarity of behaviour. Being drunk blind would not stop her from telling the man to "f*** her harder".

See me see wahala! I don't have to explain anything to you! I'm not the defence counsel, not the defendant, did not sit in the jury and not the judge. I was only here to talk about the basis of their decision. If you don't agree and need further explanation, go to the court service website and read the judgment! I think you may have the right to ask for a judicial review.

You avoided talking about the basis of their decision. You have only repeated what their decision is, and you have failed to say what it is based on.

It is OK, you have answered my question. You have FAITH in "The Criminal Cases Review Commission", FAITH in "the Court of Appeal", FAITH in "the judge" and FAITH in "the jury", even though you don't understand how they came to their conclusions or the relevance of the so-called "new evidence".

On the other hand, I have EXPLAINED the irrelevance of the "new evidence" AND subsequently found a former solicitor general who helped draft the law, who agrees.

[cic old boy]

It is OK, you have answered my question. You have FAITH in "The Criminal Cases Review Commission", FAITH in "the Court of Appeal", FAITH in "the judge" and FAITH in "the jury", even though you don't understand how they came to their conclusions or the relevance of the so-called "new evidence".

On the other hand, I have EXPLAINED the irrelevance of the "new evidence" AND subsequently found a former solicitor general who helped draft the law, who agrees.

No, I don't care about your question. I was only here to share info that was reported about the case, while you wanted to argue with the judgment, without being in court to hear the arguments and all the evidence or even with little idea what the facts were. So my brief is different from yours and I have no interest in being dragged into your specialty of pointlessness.

If you have no "faith" in the judgment, the thing to do is actually read it and challenge the reasoning. Rather than argue with yourself.

[sinequanon]

No, I don't care about your question.

That is what I said. Your position is based on FAITH in the system, not on logic. You don't care about any questions. That is what FAITH is.

If you have no "faith" in the judgment, the thing to do is actually read it and challenge the reasoning. Rather than argue with yourself.

I have read and challenged it. You wouldn't know that, as, in your own words, you "don't care".

I don't need you to "care". I am just pointing out the corruption of the system and people not caring.

[cic old boy]

That is what I said. Your position is based on FAITH in the system, not on logic. You don't care about any questions. That is what FAITH is.

I have read and challenged it. You wouldn't know that, as, in your own words, you "don't care".

I don't need you to "care". I am just pointing out the corruption of the system and people not caring.

Post the judgment that you read here and which parts you disagreed with and why. You may convince others. Instead of arguing with yourself or looking for someone to argue with.

[sinequanon]

That is what I said. Your position is based on FAITH in the system, not on logic. You don't care about any questions. That is what FAITH is.

I have read and challenged it. You wouldn't know that, as, in your own words, you "don't care".

I don't need you to "care". I am just pointing out the corruption of the system and people not caring.

Post the judgment that you read here and which parts you disagreed with and why. You may convince others. Instead of arguing with yourself or looking for someone to argue with.

You've clearly forgotten where this started. Here it is..

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=218859&start=92#p4891373

I've got to be frank, the only difficult question for me was whether the woman's drink was spiked, and if that is what caused her behaviour.

If not, then people should know that the courts do a very bad job of protecting your "right to get yourself drunk or stoned". If that is your choice, don't visit it on jurors, who probably have better things with which to be occupying their time.

According to the news today, 2 new witnesses gave evidence in the trial that she behaved towards them just like Ched Evans described.

Create a post of your own.

In response to my post, your contribution is..

irrelevant.

And all your subsequent contributions are irrelevant.

That is all I am telling you. What else you make of that, and whatever memory loss you are suffering, is your own wahala.

[cic old boy]

You've clearly forgotten where this started. Here it is..

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=218859&start=92#p4891373

I've got to be frank, the only difficult question for me was whether the woman's drink was spiked, and if that is what caused her behaviour.

If not, then people should know that the courts do a very bad job of protecting your "right to get yourself drunk or stoned". If that is your choice, don't visit it on jurors, who probably have better things with which to be occupying their time.

According to the news today, 2 new witnesses gave evidence in the trial that she behaved towards them just like Ched Evans described.

Create a post of your own.

In response to my post, your contribution is..

irrelevant.

And all your subsequent contributions are irrelevant.

That is all I am telling you. What else you make of that, and whatever memory loss you are suffering, is your own wahala.

It was irrelevant to someone who wants to argue with himself. But relevant to the CCRC, Appeal Court, retrial judge who ruled on admissibility and jury.

Once again, if you want to argue with the judgment (I'm not interested), try and read it to see how the judge explained it. Pick what you disagree with and then explain yourself. You may convince any other interested party.

[sinequanon]

You've clearly forgotten where this started. Here it is..

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=218859&start=92#p4891373

I've got to be frank, the only difficult question for me was whether the woman's drink was spiked, and if that is what caused her behaviour.

If not, then people should know that the courts do a very bad job of protecting your "right to get yourself drunk or stoned". If that is your choice, don't visit it on jurors, who probably have better things with which to be occupying their time.

According to the news today, 2 new witnesses gave evidence in the trial that she behaved towards them just like Ched Evans described.

Create a post of your own.

In response to my post, your contribution is..

irrelevant.

And all your subsequent contributions are irrelevant.

That is all I am telling you. What else you make of that, and whatever memory loss you are suffering, is your own wahala.

It was irrelevant to someone who wants to argue with himself. But relevant to the CCRC, Appeal Court, retrial judge who ruled on admissibility and jury.

Once again, if you want to argue with the judgment (I'm not interested), try and read it to see how the judge explained it. Pick what you disagree with and then explain yourself. You may convince any other interested party.

Please stop making a fool of yourself commenting on something that you are confused about and have admitted having no interest in or caring about.

[cic old boy]

Please stop making a fool of yourself commenting on something that you are confused about and have admitted having no interest in or caring about.

I commented on what led to the review of the case, the allowing of the appeal and what led to the acquittal. You didn't have the facts. I presented them to you and you wanted to argue against the judgment. It is clear you have not read the judgment. Go and read it. The judge should explain why all the conclusions were reached and why the woman's previous was relevant to the case. You disagree with the judgment. Me, I'm dealing with the facts. Two different issues. You are offering an opinion. I'm offering the facts. So you go and read the judgment and challenge it on the points you disagree with and quit arguing with me, who's only interested in the facts and not your daft rigmarole (ignorant of the facts).

[sinequanon]

Please stop making a fool of yourself commenting on something that you are confused about and have admitted having no interest in or caring about.

I commented on what led to the review of the case, the allowing of the appeal and what led to the acquittal. You didn't have the facts. I presented them to you and you wanted to argue against the judgment. It is clear you have not read the judgment. Go and read it. The judge should explain why all the conclusions were reached and why the woman's previous was relevant to the case. You disagree with the judgment. Me, I'm dealing with the facts. Two different issues. You are offering an opinion. I'm offering the facts. So you go and read the judgment and challenge it on the points you disagree with and quit arguing with me, who's only interested in the facts and not your daft rigmarole (ignorant of the facts).

You presented an article you thought I hadn't read. You were wrong.

Even more hypocritical is you asking me to "go and read it" when you clearly haven't read it yourself and you are guessing what you think the judge "should have" explained.

I have no time for your endless hypocrisy. You haven't followed the facts and you are spewing your normal I-must-have-the-last-word-at-any-cost drivel.

I have read the article, and like it or not, have come to the same conclusion as a legal expert who helped draft the legislation, as well as a number of other legal experts. My conclusion is based on the same reasoning, and I arrived at it independently.

Now, go and do you cic old stupidity somewhere else.

[pajimoh]

How some people can argue based on their own interpretation of how the law ought to be applied. The Appeal Court has made its ruling. You're here pretending to be lawyers.

Fact, the previous ruling has been set aside. I don't know if the CPS will appeal or even pursue a retrial

[cic old boy]

Questions about a complainant’s previous sexual history are not allowed in sex trials, unless a very strict set of criteria (set out in section 41 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999) are met.

As the Court of Appeal explained (at [44]), these provisions are designed to counter the myths that “unchaste women are more likely to consent and less worthy of belief”.

Yet X was cross-examined by the defence barrister over other sexual incidents – so what happened?

Well, in short, the law was followed. This point hinges mainly on “fresh evidence” that was not available at the first trial.

Leave to appeal against Evans’ conviction was refused by the Court of Appeal in 2012, and Evans thereafter approached the Criminal Cases Review Commission with “fresh evidence” which had since emerged and which he claimed undermined the safety of his conviction. We now know that the principal nature of this fresh evidence was as follows:

A man, O, gave evidence that, two weeks after 29 May 2011, he had been out drinking with X, and had engaged in consensual sexual intercourse, during which she instructed him to penetrate her vaginally from behind, shouting, “F*** me harder”.

A second man, S, gave evidence that, on 28 May 2011, X had engaged him in a night of drunken sexual activity, in which she adopted the same sexual position and used words, “Go harder”.

Evans’ case at trial was that X had acted in the same way on the 29 May 2011, encouraging him to penetrate her “doggy style” and using the words “f*** me harder”.

This, it was argued, demonstrated that she was consenting, and also supported the reasonableness of his belief that she was consenting.

One of the exceptions under section 41(3) allows for evidence of sexual history to be adduced, and questions asked of the complainant about it, where the evidence relates to the issue of consent, and is of sexual behaviour of the complainant which is “so similar to any sexual behaviour of the complainant which (according to evidence adduced or to be adduced by or on behalf of the accused) took place as part of the event which is the subject matter of the charge against the accused…that the similarity cannot reasonably be described as a coincidence”.

In short, it is beyond coincidence, the defence argued in the Court of Appeal, that X would consensually engage in this specific type of sex act using these specific words on occasions around the time of 29 May, but that she was not consenting in the same circumstances on that date.

This tends to show that, drunk though she was, she was sufficiently in control of her senses to give consent, and, furthermore, to give Evans the impression that she was consenting.

This, the defence argued, is relevant to the jury’s assessment of whether she was consenting, and whether Evans reasonably believed that she was.

The Court of Appeal, having considered other case law, agreed that in these unusual circumstances the fresh evidence ought to be admitted, and that X should be questioned on what the new witnesses had to say.

Now it may be (I haven’t had the time to properly apply my mind to it) that a forensic analysis of the Court of Appeal’s reasoning will reveal a flaw, or an inappropriate leap, or even a misinterpretation of previous binding authority.

It may be that the Court’s application of the strict criteria for agreeing to admit fresh evidence was arguably not met. Such things are not unknown.

The Court of Appeal sometimes fluffs up. But unless you’ve read the judgment, and have carried out the legal analysis and the research, you’re not able to say, are you? So, I urge you, stop spreading speculation which is not only misleading and removed from fact, but likely to deter victims from coming forward.

A special mention goes to the raft of claims in the press that this case sets a new, special precedent allowing the sexual history of complainants to be admitted in evidence in any future case, solely for the purpose of shaming the complainant in a dark return to the 1970s.

Allow me to help: The precedent that has been set is none. The Court of Appeal decision sets down no new application of law or principle, and section 41 continues to operate exactly as it did before, excluding the vast, vast majority of questions about previous sexual behaviour.

The newspapers, activists and charities propagating this false message are needlessly terrifying present and future victims, and will only risk deterring them from coming forward.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ch ... top-905120

2

[cic old boy]

How some people can argue based on their own interpretation of how the law ought to be applied. The Appeal Court has made its ruling. You're here pretending to be lawyers.

Fact, the previous ruling has been set aside. I don't know if the CPS will appeal or even pursue a retrial

No prosecution right of appeal according to this lawyer.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ch ... op-9051202

[cic old boy]

You presented an article you thought I hadn't read. You were wrong.

Even more hypocritical is you asking me to "go and read it" when you clearly haven't read it yourself and you are guessing what you think the judge "should have" explained.

I have no time for your endless hypocrisy. You haven't followed the facts and you are spewing your normal I-must-have-the-last-word-at-any-cost drivel.

I have read the article, and like it or not, have come to the same conclusion as a legal expert who helped draft the legislation, as well as a number of other legal experts. My conclusion is based on the same reasoning, and I arrived at it independently.

Now, go and do you cic old stupidity somewhere else.

I asked you go and read the judgment, not an article.

[sinequanon]

How some people can argue based on their own interpretation of how the law ought to be applied. The Appeal Court has made its ruling. You're here pretending to be lawyers.

Fact, the previous ruling has been set aside. I don't know if the CPS will appeal or even pursue a retrial

Apparently, they can't appeal.

A former judge who helped draft the legislation came to the same conclusion as I have. So, stop pretending, like cic old stupidity, not to notice.

[sinequanon]

I asked you go and read the judgment, not an article.

Clueless one, the judgement does not explain why the appeal was allowed, and a retrial called.

[cic old boy]

Even more hypocritical is you asking me to "go and read it" when you clearly haven't read it yourself and you are guessing what you think the judge "should have" explained.

Every judgment contains the reasoning and law followed. That's why lawyers usually reserve comment until they read the judgment.

[cic old boy]

Clueless one, the judgement does not explain why the appeal was allowed, and a retrial called.

That would be included in the appeal judgment. The judgment on the retrial would explain the relevance of all the evidence admitted.

[sinequanon]

Clueless one, the judgement does not explain why the appeal was allowed, and a retrial called.

That would be included in the appeal judgment. The judgment on the retrial would explain the relevance of all the evidence admitted.

You are clueless. You clearly have no idea what the appeal judgement said.

[cic old boy]

You are clueless. You clearly have no idea what the appeal judgement said.

It said the new evidence of 2 witnesses was relevant enough to quash the conviction and ordered a retrial. But you disagreed with appeal verdict and the retrial verdict and haven't read any of the judgments!

[sinequanon]

You are clueless. You clearly have no idea what the appeal judgement said.

It said the new evidence of 2 witnesses was relevant enough to quash the conviction and ordered a retrial. But you disagreed with appeal verdict and the retrial verdict and haven't read any of the judgments!

Clueless one, you have AGREED with the appeal verdict without reading it!

It only cites the Section of the Act under which the appeal was made, and states that the appeal was granted. As I said, the appeal verdict does not say what relevance the new evidence has or could have.

See how stupid you look saying that you don't care and are not interested, while having missed the point for so many posts.

[cic old boy]

Clueless one, you have AGREED with the appeal verdict without reading it!

It only cites the Section of the Act under which the appeal was made, and states that the appeal was granted. As I said, the appeal verdict does not say what relevance the new evidence has or could have.

See how stupid you look saying that you don't care and are not interested, while having missed the point for so many posts.

The appeal was based on the new evidence from 2 witnesses that was not heard at the trial and it was granted. And in your view it was not granted on the basis of that evidence! And it was not relevant even though that was the basis on which the CCRC referred the case to appeal.

[sinequanon]

The appeal was based on the new evidence from 2 witnesses that was not heard at the trial and it was granted. And in your view it was not granted on the basis of that evidence! And it was not relevant even though that was the basis on which the CCRC referred the case to appeal.

You don't know my view, you hypocrite. You've already admitted that you don't care what it is, so stop making a fool of yourself by commenting on it.

And you are wrong. You don't understand the ruling. The appeal was not granted on the basis that the new evidence was relevant.

[cic old boy]

You don't know my view, you hypocrite. You've already admitted that you don't care what it is, so stop making a fool of yourself by commenting on it.

And you are wrong. You don't understand the ruling. The appeal was not granted on the basis that the new evidence was relevant.

I don't know your view. I just read what you wrote, which in your deranged world may be different from your view!

The appeal Confusion break bone!

The Court of Appeal, having considered other case law, agreed that in these unusual circumstances the fresh evidence ought to be admitted, and that X should be questioned on what the new witnesses had to say.

Link already provided above.