Ched refused right to appeal :(

[sitwell]

By a single judge ,carrying on to a higher court .

 

[yorkshirecoast]

Disgraceful. All the best Ched.

 

[Oldham Blade]

Dont understand what that means, how can an appeal be refused but also continue?

 

[metalblade]

It just means the briefs get more ££££'s

 

[LA Blade]

At this rate he will have served his time!

 

[bartman]

By a single judge ,carrying on to a higher court .

any ideas from legal experts on here why an appeal would be rejected ? Would it be fair to say the judge is saying 'no legal grounds for an appeal' If that is so,why would a higher court think different ?

 

[Bert]

any ideas from legal experts on here why an appeal would be rejected ? Would it be fair to say the judge is saying 'no legal grounds for an appeal' If that is so,why would a higher court think different ?

No new evidence? Presumably you can't just appeal because you do like the verdict.

Bert will be setting fire to himself in the car park in protest.

 

[sheffielder]

Whatever anyone's opinions are over this matter, we need to move on as we have more important things to worry about.

 

[Bladesman]

The local court Caernarfon Crown Court have refused his appeal.

It hasn't actually gone to the full Court Of Appeal yet.

Darren will know more on this.

 

[Deadbat]

I agree with sheffielder; we need to move on. The fact that the initial appeal has been rejected means it will be quite a length of time before an appeal is officially lodged, dealt with and heard with by the full court of appeal.

It could be up to another year or even longer. In all likelihood there is a chance he will have served most of his time (will only serve 2 and a half years of 5 year sentence). If he is/was innocent then its his fight to fight. He is no longer an employee of SUFC and never will be again (despite these half baked stories doing the rounds about the club paying his fees for an appeal - why would we pay the appeal - surely he has funds to be able to do this and what does the club owe him now?).

I am still unsure why there is such support for him and continued fascination with him. It was his idiocy (guilty or not) along with being on around 15-20K per week for 3 years (more so the idiots that gave him such a contract) that has contributed to what a mess we are in currently - along with so many other factors of couse. Supposedly the club also may lose 20 of 50 staff (some of which have mortages/families etc) and the club are in desperate straits (contacting clubs like Scunny to try and take Cresswell for instance). We do have so much more to worry about rather than planks like him and Williamson who bled the club dry for very little they gave back the other way. Sorry if that sounds harsh but way I feel.

 

[beightonblade]

Convicted rapist, end of story.

 

[LA Blade]

Well summarized DB.

 

[beightonblade]

An appeal against a Crown Court conviction is heard by the Court of Appeal. The written basis of the appeal is initially considered by a single Court of Appeal judge (the 'single judge') who determines whether to grant leave (i.e. permission) to appeal.

This process is aimed at weeding out appeals that appear to have no merit.

If the single judge refuses leave to appeal then the application for leave can be renewed in which case it will be heard by the 'full court' (usually three Court of Appeal judges). In practice, if the full court decides to grant leave it will then go on to determine (i.e decide) the appeal at the same hearing.

Renewing an application for leave to appeal is not without risk; if the full court also considers the appeal to be without merit it has the power to order the appellant to pay the costs of the hearing and can also order that some or all of the time already served by the appellant should not count towards his sentence.

KerrAvon says.

 

[broomhillblade]

I

I am still unsure why there is such support for him and continued fascination with him. It was his idiocy (guilty or not) along with being on around 15-20K per week for 3 years (more so the idiots that gave him such a contract) that has contributed to what a mess we are in currently - along with so many other factors of couse. Supposedly the club also may lose 20 of 50 staff (some of which have mortages/families etc) and the club are in desperate straits (contacting clubs like Scunny to try and take Cresswell for instance). We do have so much more to worry about rather than planks like him and Williamson who bled the club dry for very little they gave back the other way. Sorry if that sounds harsh but way I feel.

I can see where you're coming from, but in Ched's case 58 league and cup goals for the Blades can hardly be described as 'very little'.

 

[bladeinlondon]

An appeal against a Crown Court conviction is heard by the Court of Appeal. The written basis of the appeal is initially considered by a single Court of Appeal judge (the 'single judge') who determines whether to grant leave (i.e. permission) to appeal.

This process is aimed at weeding out appeals that appear to have no merit.

If the single judge refuses leave to appeal then the application for leave can be renewed in which case it will be heard by the 'full court' (usually three Court of Appeal judges). In practice, if the full court decides to grant leave it will then go on to determine (i.e decide) the appeal at the same hearing.

Renewing an application for leave to appeal is not without risk; if the full court also considers the appeal to be without merit it has the power to order the appellant to pay the costs of the hearing and can also order that some or all of the time already served by the appellant should not count towards his sentence.

KerrAvon says.

Good summary of the law. There has been no info about the potential grounds.
I wondered if there was more than the inconsistent verdicts. There were rumours of a refused bad character application.
Namely she had cried rape before and the jury weren't told.
However leave being refused means there are not strong grounds for an appeal.
I am withDeadbat. It's over move on down the bus.

 

[Pinchy]

The law is pretty much as cut and pasted by Beighton. I'll just clarify one or two things arising out of posts above:

The Crown Court has no involvement in deciding an application for Leave to Appeal.

The Single Judge is a member of the Court of Appeal. A renewed application is to the Full Court (three different Court of Appeal Judges) not a higher court.

The major difference is that the full court will hear oral submissions whereas the Single Judge considers the application on paper in his Chambers.

Legal aid is not available for a renewed application, which is normally a stumbling block but of no relevance in Ched's case.

This is not a minor setback. Renewed applications usually fail. If you can't convert a bloke in a boozer to your point of view, do you expect to persuade three of his mates, who already know what the first bloke has said to you?

 

[geekblade]

I know this is going to make me unpopular and risk being flamed by some of the Chedites on here but it's time to face facts: Ched is guilty. Rape convictions are incredibly hard to get and the evidence has to be pretty damning and so it must be. Us mere civvies don't have all the facts to question the the conviction. The appeals court however does.

If you can't convince a judge through the early stage of an appeal that his conviction is unsound then he's got no chance of being released. End of story.

 

[mattbianco1]

He'll win his appeal in April.

We'll be third in the league with 3 games to play. He'll get 3 hat-tricks and we'll finish 2nd.

 

[mattbianco1]

I know this is going to make me unpopular and risk being flamed by some of the Chedites on here but it's time to face facts: Ched is guilty. Rape convictions are incredibly hard to get and the evidence has to be pretty damning and so it must be. Us mere civvies don't have all the facts to question the the conviction. The appeals court however does.

If you can't convince a judge through the early stage of an appeal that his conviction is unsound then he's got no chance of being released. End of story.

I hear what you are saying. But, to play Devil's Advocate....

A minimum sentence was delivered by a judge who almost sounded apologetic in his final statement. He could've given him 10, 12 or life imprisonment. The minimum sentence for rape is 5 years. He'll be out in 2.5.

A minimum sentence for a "High profile case". Strange

 

[Pinchy]

There is no minimum sentence for rape. The sentence imposed was in accordance with the Sentencing Council guideline. It was neither lenient nor excessive. The 'profile' of a case has no bearing on sentence.

 

[broomhillblade]

I know this is going to make me unpopular and risk being flamed by some of the Chedites on here but it's time to face facts: Ched is guilty. Rape convictions are incredibly hard to get and the evidence has to be pretty damning and so it must be. Us mere civvies don't have all the facts to question the the conviction. The appeals court however does.

If you can't convince a judge through the early stage of an appeal that his conviction is unsound then he's got no chance of being released. End of story.

Thanks to the journo who was tweeting throughout the case, we heard all the evidence from both sides. There was no other damning evidence that has not been reported.

Ched was convicted on the whim of the jury. I don't for one moment condone what he did, but I still think the conviction was questionable.

 

[Highbury_Blade]

There is no minimum sentence for rape. The sentence imposed was in accordance with the Sentencing Council guideline. It was neither lenient nor excessive. The 'profile' of a case has no bearing on sentence.

And, has been pointed out before, he should thank his lucky stars that Macdonald got off, otherwise he might have been looking at an 8 year stretch.

 

[JJ Sefton]

I bet this isn't the sort of bird he thought he'd end up doing when he went out that night.

 

[riselikeasalmon]

Thanks to the journo who was tweeting throughout the case, we heard all the evidence from both sides. There was no other damning evidence that has not been reported.

Ched was convicted on the whim of the jury. I don't for one moment condone what he did, but I still think the conviction was questionable.

I too having followed what was reported of the case found the verdict surprising, but a unanimous verdict of 12 people having spent nearly 2 weeks there is hardly a whim.

 

[Revolution]

Thanks to the journo who was tweeting throughout the case, we heard all the evidence from both sides.

No we didn't. We saw only what he reported. The jury saw the whole thing, and were in the best place to assess the whole of the evidence.

 

[mpjacko]

Convicted rapist, end of story.

But if he wins his appeal and his conviction squashed, then he won't be a convicted rapist. The story is no way near ending

 

[beightonblade]

But if he wins his appeal and his conviction squashed, then he won't be a convicted rapist. The story is no way near ending

If mi granny had a cock she'd be mi grandad.
He had some of the best legal eagles out there representing him .......... I'll bet me house he'll not overturn the verdict.

Wunder how much is bill is? (fookin hell)

 

[Deadbat]

I can see where you're coming from, but in Ched's case 58 league and cup goals for the Blades can hardly be described as 'very little'.

I would argue he spent nearly 3 years at the club on the biggest wage we ever paid probably anyone and maybe had around 8 good months with the club (Sept-April) at the third tier of English football. He did very little in the Champ in 2 season before that under 3 different managers. I would say for 15-20K a week his contribution in 3 years if you take into account his stupidity off the field then 'very little' is being kind. Ask all those employees at SUFC who may be looking for new jobs due to the likes of him (and many of other squad members shown below) there opinions on him?

As with Williamson why did these not players play like they were capable of us we slumped down the Champ and then went down without so much of a whimper. I remember total non performances by so many of these players in games at Palace, Scunny, Preston as we went down.

The core of the players (Evans, Williamson, Quinn, Monty, Simonsen, Collins, Doyle etc) presided over taking us down and failing to finish the job off (twice) last season.

Yesterdays news means it will be up to 9 months-1 year before any further news on Evans and even then there is little chance of a re-trial; that will not only mean he will never play for us again but may never play football again - he would be on the sex offenders list and thus I believe could he not work with people under the age of 18 meaning a football club could not employ him - I may be wrong on this?

As I have said before; time to move on.

 

[Deadbat]

Thanks to the journo who was tweeting throughout the case, we heard all the evidence from both sides. There was no other damning evidence that has not been reported.

Ched was convicted on the whim of the jury. I don't for one moment condone what he did, but I still think the conviction was questionable.

Still do not get this; 'we know all the evidence' thing? None of us was in the courtroom for 1o days? ? None of us saw the cross examinations? We got snippets from Sky News - but there is no way everything that was said in 10 days was reported - it would be mountains and mountains of evidence, interviews (with all involved) - the jury has far, far more to make a decision than us - the fact it was unanimous and relatively quickly - they could have come back the following Monday - suggests this was far more than just a whim or moral decision.

The fact that an appeal has now been refused also surely suggests there is a hell of a lot of evidence that secured a safe conviction in the eyes of the legal people and that is was not as questionable as some have suggested.

It does make me perplexed why quite a few on forums still are steadfast he is innocent wihtout having anywhere near the full facts.

 

[Bladesway]

No new evidence? Presumably you can't just appeal because you do like the verdict.

Bert will be setting fire to himself in the car park in protest.

Every cloud.