2nd appeal for Ched?

[Darren]

General legal point, Darren. I've often seen films where a barrister goes a bit off-piste to prove a point. The opposition objects and the judge says 'Upheld. The jury are not to take heed of that last point.'

But in reality, they will, surely? The seed has been planted and, unless the jurors are busy Tweeting or haven't a basic grasp of English, they will have heard and considered the point.

No-one goes "objection" in English courts - you have been watching too many American court dramas

In reality if a barrister asked a question he shouldn't ask, the opposing barrister will generally leap in before the witness answers and says that he has a legal point to raise. The jury are then sent out and the opposing barrister will explain why he thinks the question shouldn't be asked. The judge will then rule on that point in the absence of the jury and, if the judge rules that the question shouldn't be asked, then the jury will never get to hear the witness' answer. Obviously the question is not evidence, only the witness' answer is evidence and the jury are told that over and over.

Such things like that actually very rarely happen. Barristers know what they can and can't ask and if a barrister kept asking impermissible questions, he would soon get struck off. Hence they don't do that.

In a very rare situation where a barrister asks an impermissible question and the witness answers, if the issue was sufficfiently serious, the jury would be discharged, there would be a re-trial and the barrister would be in serious shit.

 

[grafikhaus]

No-one goes "objection" in English courts - you have been watching too many American court dramas

In reality if a barrister asked a question he shouldn't ask, the opposing barrister will generally leap in before the witness answers and says that he has a legal point to raise. The jury are then sent out and the opposing barrister will explain why he thinks the question shouldn't be asked. The judge will then rule on that point in the absence of the jury and, if the judge rules that the question shouldn't be asked, then the jury will never get to hear the witness' answer. Obviously the question is not evidence, only the witness' answer is evidence and the jury are told that over and over.

Such things like that actually very rarely happen. Barristers know what they can and can't ask and if a barrister kept asking impermissible questions, he would soon get struck off. Hence they don't do that.

In a very rare situation where a barrister asks an impermissible question and the witness answers, if the issue was sufficfiently serious, the jury would be discharged, there would be a re-trial and the barrister would be in serious shit.

Thanks for that Darren You're right - I have been watching too many American court dramas but 'My Cousin Vinnie' should be on the school curriculum!

 

[Selly]

Indeed. I am not monogamous. I have sex with people other than my primary partner (and so does she). Does that make me more likely to rape someone?

In the eyes of some people, perhaps it does. Participation in juries of these people is almost inevitable...

 

[Highbury_Blade]

She had drunk the equivalent of a half bottle of wine

Nope.

"She had drunk two glasses of wine, four double vodkas with lemonade and a shot of sambuca."

 

[anglian blade]

Nope.

"She had drunk two glasses of wine, four double vodkas with lemonade and a shot of sambuca."

Less than than usual according to some of her neighbours

 

[blade too long]

He obviously feels , if not not guilty of rape , that hes had sex with her in as inebriated a state as shes claimed to be , so feels the need to, as anyone would not to be tarred as a rapist, in the evil pre meditated version that would be abhorrant, not so much non consented as lack of awareness not to continue , if you get the drift . I know people who have ended up doing the deed after copious ammounts of drink that they regretted later, some may have ammounted to a form of rape , we dont know the total detail so we can only make guesses but hes not letting it drop , and with the diminishing months left to serve coul;d easily given up , but hasnt .

 

[Darren]

In the eyes of some people, perhaps it does. Participation in juries of these people is almost inevitable...

It would be impermissible for the prosecution to say to a jury that "x has a partner and he puts it about a bit, so you might think that makes him more likely to comitt rape". Details of a Defendant's sex life would be just as inadmissible as details of the complainant's. I assume CE made a tactical decision as to how to present his relationship status. It presumably looked better for him to say "I have a girlfriend, I made a mistake and she is standing by me" than "yep, I'm a footballer who puts it about a lot" and not mentioning the girlfriend.

 

[Darren]

Less than than usual according to some of her neighbours

I am not sure what the point of your post is. Is it to suggest that someone who drinks a lot is more likely to lie?

It would hardly help Ched's case to overplay how much she drunk. From his point of view, the less she drank the better as the less she drank, the less likely it meant that she was so drunk as to be incapable of consent

 

[anglian blade]

No the point that was being made is that your capacity tends increase the more you drink so Highbury Blades list means nothing out of context.

 

[GRUMPY BLADE]

She had drunk the equivalent of a half bottle of wine

Thought Rhyl was a bit rough?
That's just warming up on the Manor

 

[Sirius]

This

Sorry Dronnie. you've lost me there ??

 

[DronnieBlade]

Sorry Dronnie. you've lost me there ??

Just agreeing with you mate. Word for word.

 

[Sirius]

Just agreeing with you mate. Word for word.

Thanks DB. It's the rare mountain air that got to me back to normal now

 

[Sheff de party]

Whenever i say to new people, "I'm a Sheffield United fan", they say "what about that Ched Evans? How did his mate get off?"

As I understand it, she goes back to a hotel with McDonald and Ched appears from nowhere and has sex with her. It's going to be difficult to prove she took one look at him and said "on you get then sonna" and I imagine that's what the jury thought. At least McDonald could say that she went back to the hotel with him.

As an aside Darren, thanks for your constant insights into this case. Fascinating posts.

 

[BladeFisher]

Indeed. I am not monogamous. I have sex with people other than my primary partner (and so does she). Does that make me more likely to rape someone?

Should your handle then be Darren Swinging Blade rather than Darren New Member?

 

[BladeFisher]

No-one goes "objection" in English courts - you have been watching too many American court dramas

In reality if a barrister asked a question he shouldn't ask, the opposing barrister will generally leap in before the witness answers and says that he has a legal point to raise. The jury are then sent out and the opposing barrister will explain why he thinks the question shouldn't be asked. The judge will then rule on that point in the absence of the jury and, if the judge rules that the question shouldn't be asked, then the jury will never get to hear the witness' answer. Obviously the question is not evidence, only the witness' answer is evidence and the jury are told that over and over.

Such things like that actually very rarely happen. Barristers know what they can and can't ask and if a barrister kept asking impermissible questions, he would soon get struck off. Hence they don't do that.

In a very rare situation where a barrister asks an impermissible question and the witness answers, if the issue was sufficfiently serious, the jury would be discharged, there would be a re-trial and the barrister would be in serious shit.

Interesting stuff. Any examples of when/if that has happened?

 

[Selly]

As I understand it, she goes back to a hotel with McDonald and Ched appears from nowhere and has sex with her. It's going to be difficult to prove she took one look at him and said "on you get then sonna" and I imagine that's what the jury thought. At least McDonald could say that she went back to the hotel with him.

It should be noted of course that Ched defence team don't have to prove this to get him off. The prosecution have to prove that she didn't, or if she did, was incapable of doing so due to "other factors".

 

[Darren]

It should be noted of course that Ched defence team don't have to prove this to get him off. The prosecution have to prove that she didn't, or if she did, was incapable of doing so due to "other factors".

Th defence. of course, doesn't have to prove anything. The only evidence about what happened in the hotel room came from CE and CM. If that had been the only evidence there would have been no case against them. The evidence against them was the evidence as to the complainant's state emanating from other witnesses and the CCTV.

An interesting point is whether or not CM and CE would have been best served doing "no comment" to the police questions. If there was DNA evidence showing that they had sex with the complainant that would have been pointless. If there was no DNA evidence (and there may not have been given the lapse of time before she reported it and assuming she had washed or showered since), then there was no evidence sex had happened until the two men said it had.

 

[boo radley]

If there was DNA evidence showing that they had sex with the complainant that would have been pointless. If there was no DNA evidence (and there may not have been given the lapse of time before she reported it and assuming she had washed or showered since),

Ah this is why DNA test results work well on the Jeremy Kyle show! Although they would find a right mix of (sub) human soup in most.

 

[Pinchy]

Interesting stuff. Any examples of when/if that has happened?

Funny you should ask:

http://www.casetrack.com/ct4clw.nsf/B8599686A5CAAEFD80257BFA003C7D3E/$FILE/3009hd40.rtf