Ched Evans legal statement

[moDtheGod]

Yes you can. Plenty of people in life have been accused of things and have forever been associated with those things, even when they've been found not guilty. Shit sticks.

 

[Darren]

The CPS merely look at the prosecution's evidence against, not that of the defence. If the police have supplied what looks to be enough evidence to convict then they'll charge. In this case that's the woman's view of events. What Ched has to say is a matter for the court to consider and ultimately if he admits to being there then it'll come down to his version of events over hers. http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/fact_sheets/decision_to_charge/

That's not quite correct. CE will have been interviewed by the police and the CPS will take into account what he said (or didn't say) in interview and anticipate his likely defence when making a decision whether or not to charge. If they consider, taking this and all of the prosecution evidence into account, that it is more likely that not that he will be convicted, then he will be charged. However, this is just the CPS' view and anything can happen when the case comes in front of a jury.

 

[Vancouver]

Yes you can. Plenty of people in life have been accused of things and have forever been associated with those things, even when they've been found not guilty. Shit sticks.

Doesn't mean that it's the right thing to do though. Until he's convicted he should be treated as innocent. If he gets found not guilty then he's not guilty so we should treat him as such. If he is found guilty then hopefully he'll get the special treatment he deserves in prison.

It's sad that most people on here are using a potential rape as a great way to get rid of a player they don't like.

 

[axel smeets]

Doesn't mean that it's the right thing to do though. Until he's convicted he should be treated as innocent. If he gets found not guilty then he's not guilty so we should treat him as such. If he is found guilty then hopefully he'll get the special treatment he deserves in prison.

It's sad that most people on here are using a potential rape as a great way to get rid of a player they don't like.

People are being pragmatic about it I think. Evans is a massive drain on the wage bill, has underperformed for 2 years and now these allegations surface. Of course we should all consider him innocent until proven otherwise but this could make it practically impossible to shift him for months now.

Surely whether people rate him or not, most would agree that facing a massive drop in income from television and ticket sales after our relegation, Evans must go for financial reasons. Allegedly he is on £15-20k per week, over 6 months for example until the January transfer window, that could amount to around £400k.

 

[Jim Chimmerney]

Given that she's had at least 6 weeks to simmer over this whilst he's been on bail and the fact charges have now been brought against him, you'd expect she and her people think they have a case. Legally, I'm not sure what happens next, presumably Evans will deny it and it'll then be set for trial further down the line.

From a footballing point of view, Lee Hughes and Marlon King have found no problem finding clubs but of course it'll be us that lose out initially. Maybe we can at least suspend him and save the wages, would we be entitled to some kind of compensation from the player himself if found guilty I wonder ?

 

[broomhillblade]

the rumour on the grapevine is he's in deep shit

Aye... it's a real bummer...

 

[DronnieBlade]

John Ebbrell will take a lot to have that crown removed.

Your right, it did.

I give you Darius Alexis Henderson.

 

[Worksop II]

Maybe we can at least suspend him and save the wages, would we be entitled to some kind of compensation from the player himself if found guilty I wonder ?

If we suspend him, dont pay him, and he is found Not Guilty I would imagine Ched would end up owning the Freehold .....

 

[LoughboroBlade]

Daily Mail says he's appearing before magistrates on August 8th, so hopefully this'll be resolved soon one way or the other.

 

[Kenilworth]

Considering Ched has been given the number 9 shirt and this hearing appears to be set for Monday 8th Aug does anyone think he will be selected for the squad to face Oldham next week?

What a complete fecking clot the feller is. Didn't he buy a house with his floosey in Sheffield recently? Wonder if she is sticking by him or if she has flipped him the finger and fled the nest?

 

[Pedro Verde]

Innocent until proven guilty, if hes in the right frame of mind he should be considered for selection

 

[Jehovah]

Daily Mail says he's appearing before magistrates on August 8th, so hopefully this'll be resolved soon one way or the other.

Afraid not. This hearing will just be to confirm he is aware of the charges against him and possibly a plea. The magistrate will then state it can not be dealt with at Magistrates court and needs to set a hearing at crown. Ill be suprised if the trial hapens before the transfer deadline.

 

[broomhillblade]

The Club has not had much luck ever since we were shafted over the Tevez affair.

It's just one darn thing after another....

As the immortal Bard might have said: "As one door shuts, another one slams in your face"

 

[Revolution]

Ched wishes to place on record that he strenuously denies the charge and will defend it vigorously in order to clear his name.

Ched doing something strenously and vigorously? first time for everything I suppose.

 

[broomhillblade]

Ched wishes to place on record that he strenuously denies the charge and will defend it vigorously in order to clear his name.

Ched doing something strenously and vigorously? first time for everything I suppose.

... er... second time actually by the sound of it

 

[Darren]

Afraid not. This hearing will just be to confirm he is aware of the charges against him and possibly a plea. The magistrate will then state it can not be dealt with at Magistrates court and needs to set a hearing at crown. Ill be suprised if the trial hapens before the transfer deadline.

What will happen is this:

He will appear at the Mags Court on 8th August. As rape is a charge that can only be dealt with at the Crown Court, the case will be subject to an automatic transfer, which means that all that will happen is that CE will be given a date when he will have to appear at Crown Court. This subsequent hearing is likely to be a pleas and case management hearing (PCMH). In London these tend to be set eight weeks after the first appearance in the Mags Court, but I imagine north Wales Courts will be less busy, so we might see a PCMH in early to mid September.

At the PCMH CE will give his plea (which will be not guilty) and the judge will make any ncessary directions regarding the service of documents etc. He will also set a date for the trial. In London, when someone is on bail (prioroty is given to cases where someone is in custody), a trial will usually take place 3-6 months after a PCMH. Exactly how long depends on how long a trial will last and how compliacted the case is. The longer the trial and the more complicated the case, the greater the delay. Again, north Wales Courts are likely to be less busy, but it is unlikely we will get a trial this year.

 

[madeinsheffield]

He probably missed anyway!

 

[boo radley]

So is he locked up at the moment?

 

[Highbury_Blade]

I presume he's released on bail.

 

[Darren]

I presume he's released on bail.

Yes, he is.

 

[boo radley]

so surley he will start the season with us?

 

[Highbury_Blade]

so surley he will start the season with us?

Unfortunately, yes.

 

[boo radley]

In rape cases where there is little doubt surley the accussed remains in custody?
Perhaps Darren can throw a few examples in about how different levels of suspicion work?

 

[Darren]

In rape cases where there is little doubt surley the accussed remains in custody?
Perhaps Darren can throw a few examples in about how different levels of suspicion work?

I don't know where you get the idea that there is "little doubt" in this case. All we know is that the CPS think there is enough evidence to charge and CE vehemently denies the allegation. On that basis we can't make a judgment how likely it is he will be convicted.

Anyway, how strong a case is has little to do with whether someone gets bail. Bail can only be refused if the police/Court believe certain specified grounds apply, the main ones being:

(1) They will fail to turn up at court
(2) They will re-offend whilst on bail
(3) They will interfere with prosecution witnesses.

As (I assume) CE has no previous convictions and has turned up at the police station when required to do so, there would be no grounds to think he will fail to turn up at court or will re-offend. On the third reason, I suspect a condition of his bail is that he doesn't contact the complainant or any other witnesses (that would be standard in sexual offences)

 

[Kev Gee]

Well i suppose thats scuppered any chance of us selling him until the case is over.

As for the charge - Innocent until proven guilty.

What a disaster of a signing he has been.

 

[boo radley]

I don't know where you get the idea that there is "little doubt" in this case. All we know is that the CPS think there is enough evidence to charge and CE vehemently denies the allegation. On that basis we can't make a judgment how likely it is he will be convicted.

Anyway, how strong a case is has little to do with whether someone gets bail. Bail can only be refused if the police/Court believe certain specified grounds apply, the main ones being:

(1) They will fail to turn up at court
(2) They will re-offend whilst on bail
(3) They will interfere with prosecution witnesses.

As (I assume) CE has no previous convictions and has turned up at the police station when required to do so, there would be no grounds to think he will fail to turn up at court or will re-offend. On the third reason, I suspect a condition of his bail is that he doesn't contact the complainant or any other witnesses (that would be standard in sexual offences)

Flippin eck Darren. I'm supprised. I did not infer that there was 'little doubt' about CE. I know nothing about it to make such a comment. I was inferring to say a gang rape where the culprit or culprits were arrested shortly afterwards loads of witnesses etc, would they be held till trial?
I was infering (sorry if i wrote it wrong) that with CE there seems to be a lot of doubt. If not then i thought that rape would be serious enough for him to be held.
Anyway you seemed to have answered my query in the above post. - Sorry for the misunderstanding.

 

[Darren]

Flippin eck Darren. I'm supprised. I did not infer that there was 'little doubt' about CE. I know nothing about it to make such a comment. I was inferring to say a gang rape where the culprit or culprits were arrested shortly afterwards loads of witnesses etc, would they be held till trial?
I was infering (sorry if i wrote it wrong) that with CE there seems to be a lot of doubt. If not then i thought that rape would be serious enough for him to be held.
Anyway you seemed to have answered my query in the above post. - Sorry for the misunderstanding.

No matter how serious the crime there is a presumption that bail will be granted unless one of the statutory conditions apply. However, the more serious the crime and the stronger the evidence, the more likely a court will be to decide that a suspect is not likely to turn up at court (as he will want to avoid the long prison sentence that is very likely) and thus remand him in custody.

Bear in mind though that remanding someone is custody pending trial is not a punishment (they are, after all, innocent at that stage), it is just a mechanism to get them to Court.

And you were implying, not inferring

 

[boo radley]

No matter how serious the crime there is a presumption that bail will be granted unless one of the statutory conditions apply. However, the more serious the crime and the stronger the evidence, the more likely a court will be to decide that a suspect is not likely to turn up at court (as he will want to avoid the long prison sentence that is very likely) and thus remand him in custody.

Bear in mind though that remanding someone is custody pending trial is not a punishment (they are, after all, innocent at that stage), it is just a mechanism to get them to Court.

And you were implying, not inferring

probably.... as i have no evidence.

 

[Elsecar_Blade]

I don't think that there is any way that SUFC can play Ched Evans with this hanging over him. I believe in his innocence until proven guilty but there are other issues that SUFC, as a football club, need to consider.

1. The media focus on Ched if he were to play. SUFC don't need those distractions.

2. Ched's state of mind. If he is not guilty, which we must presume he is for now, then mentally he will be all over the place. Being accused of something you haven't done is never nice - can only imagine what it must be like if there is a chance of being locked up and having your career ruined from it.

3. Negative backlash from supporters - opposition and SUFC supporters. SUFC need to concentrate on putting things right on the football pitch. Opposition chants about Ched will not help us do that IMO. You've also got the issue that many SUFC fans will (a) presume he is guilty, (b) believe he is part of the reason we got relegated in the first place and (c) will be against him due to his wages and the effect that has on SUFC's plans in the transfer market. Could you imagine if the SUFC fans chanted at Evans while he was in a Blades shirt?

4. SUFC try to portray themselves - usually successfully - as a family club. Whilst we must presume Ched is innocent unless proven guilty, the idea of a rapist - if that is what he is proven to be - having worn the SUFC shirt is not helpful to our family club image. It's not United's fault in any way, shape or form BUT people would hold it against us. Look on Twitter and the response of Wednesday fans to being ribbed about 14-0 - the first thing fired back is about our rapist up front. Through no fault of our own, SUFC's image is already tarnished either by Ched's misdemeanours or by 'untrue' allegations against him.

What is paramount though is that people understand that Ched is innocent until proven guilty. If he is innocent, he does not deserve what he is going through right now however crap he has been for SUFC and however much money he earns but doesn't deserve. I find it sad that many people want to use this as an excuse to sack the lad. If he is guilty, fine, sack him. If he is innocent, then this will be an incredibly trying time for him and nobody - not even Ched Evans - deserves it.

UTB!

 

[Darren]

I don't think that there is any way that SUFC can play Ched Evans with this hanging over him. I believe in his innocence until proven guilty but there are other issues that SUFC, as a football club, need to consider.

1. The media focus on Ched if he were to play. SUFC don't need those distractions.

2. Ched's state of mind. If he is not guilty, which we must presume he is for now, then mentally he will be all over the place. Being accused of something you haven't done is never nice - can only imagine what it must be like if there is a chance of being locked up and having your career ruined from it.

3. Negative backlash from supporters - opposition and SUFC supporters. SUFC need to concentrate on putting things right on the football pitch. Opposition chants about Ched will not help us do that IMO. You've also got the issue that many SUFC fans will (a) presume he is guilty, (b) believe he is part of the reason we got relegated in the first place and (c) will be against him due to his wages and the effect that has on SUFC's plans in the transfer market. Could you imagine if the SUFC fans chanted at Evans while he was in a Blades shirt?

4. SUFC try to portray themselves - usually successfully - as a family club. Whilst we must presume Ched is innocent unless proven guilty, the idea of a rapist - if that is what he is proven to be - having worn the SUFC shirt is not helpful to our family club image. It's not United's fault in any way, shape or form BUT people would hold it against us. Look on Twitter and the response of Wednesday fans to being ribbed about 14-0 - the first thing fired back is about our rapist up front. Through no fault of our own, SUFC's image is already tarnished either by Ched's misdemeanours or by 'untrue' allegations against him.

What is paramount though is that people understand that Ched is innocent until proven guilty. If he is innocent, he does not deserve what he is going through right now however crap he has been for SUFC and however much money he earns but doesn't deserve. I find it sad that many people want to use this as an excuse to sack the lad. If he is guilty, fine, sack him. If he is innocent, then this will be an incredibly trying time for him and nobody - not even Ched Evans - deserves it.

UTB!

A well thought out post, but I think the only real issue here is the judgment as to whether or not playing CE will do SUFC more good than harm on the pitch. If Wilson thinks CE's head is in the right place and that he can do the proverbial job, then he should play him. If not, not. I really don't give a monkeys for what Wednesday fans or anyone else might say about us playing a "rapist". At the moment, he is no such thing. And I really don't think SUFC's image can be harmed by playing someone who is subject to an unproven allegation.