Ched

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?




That's quite astonishing and baffling. I wouldn't have thought he had a leg to stand on and a quote from the firm of solicitors agrees: 'We are glad that Ched Evans has agreed not to pursue this case, which we believe was entirely without merit. Brabners put forward a strong defence of Mr Evans claim following a thorough process and we were prepared to vigorously defend our handling of the case.'
So why have they settled? And for so much?
 
Hamburg Blade said:
That's quite astonishing and baffling. I wouldn't have thought he had a leg to stand on and a quote from the firm of solicitors agrees: 'We are glad that Ched Evans has agreed not to pursue this case, which we believe was entirely without merit. Brabners put forward a strong defence of Mr Evans claim following a thorough process and we were prepared to vigorously defend our handling of the case.'
So why have they settled? And for so much?
Click to expand...


Because they were shit and got him convicted?

Good luck Ched. At Fleetwood or wherever.
Be kind of karma if he came back and smashed one in against our first opponents next season.
 
Hamburg Blade said:
That's quite astonishing and baffling. I wouldn't have thought he had a leg to stand on and a quote from the firm of solicitors agrees: 'We are glad that Ched Evans has agreed not to pursue this case, which we believe was entirely without merit. Brabners put forward a strong defence of Mr Evans claim following a thorough process and we were prepared to vigorously defend our handling of the case.'
So why have they settled? And for so much?
Click to expand...


Refund of fees?
 
Hamburg Blade said:
That's quite astonishing and baffling. I wouldn't have thought he had a leg to stand on and a quote from the firm of solicitors agrees: 'We are glad that Ched Evans has agreed not to pursue this case, which we believe was entirely without merit. Brabners put forward a strong defence of Mr Evans claim following a thorough process and we were prepared to vigorously defend our handling of the case.'
So why have they settled? And for so much?
Click to expand...

First, Brabners are a decent legal firm (decent sized and with a good reputation), so if they thought settling out of court was the right course of action, I can only assume it was because they thought they had a weak case.

Second, without dredging it all up again, I remember after he was sent to prison, an investigative journalist from down south (can't remember his name) looked into the case and came up with a load of stuff that he said should have been put forward by Ched's legal team, first time around. I think that this was the basis of the "new evidence" and the retrial, etc.
 
Hamburg Blade said:
That's quite astonishing and baffling. I wouldn't have thought he had a leg to stand on and a quote from the firm of solicitors agrees: 'We are glad that Ched Evans has agreed not to pursue this case, which we believe was entirely without merit. Brabners put forward a strong defence of Mr Evans claim following a thorough process and we were prepared to vigorously defend our handling of the case.'
So why have they settled? And for so much?
Click to expand...
Firstly, they’re lawyers so they’re not stupid enough to admit any kind of culpability. So ignore their statement. It’s as believable as the crap politicians come out with.

Secondly, they know no one looks good in litigation. No one wants their small mistakes amplified and broadcast to the public. Almost every job I’ve done I can look back on with the benefit of hindsight and think ‘I could have done x a bit better, I should have worded y a bit clearer etc. Negligence cases are horrible. You’re supposed to carry out your work with the skill of an average practitioner in your field. That means you’re not expected to be perfect but the QC acting against you has to build a case, so he or she goes through every little mistake you’ve made, everything you could have done better, to try to paint a picture of you as being negligent. In a high profile case it can be very damaging to your reputation.

Thirdly, ultimately they failed to keep him out of jail when there was little hard evidence of what happened. There often isn’t in such cases but we’re talking about high paid barristers here. Would another barrister been able to make a stronger case on his behalf? You’d think so. The fact the conviction was overturned suggests so.

Fourthly, did they advise him of all his options, particularly the final, successful appeal?

Fifthly, it may have been a decision taken by his PI insurers. He may have been due for a lot more if he’d won and perhaps they didn’t want to take the risk. That would suggest they’ve risked profiled it but that in itself wouldn’t be easy. There’s often an element of guesswork in cases like these as they’re quite individual. You’re looking at balance of evidence rather than beyond reasonable doubt. It’s quite subjective.
 
Grappler said:
First, Brabners are a decent legal firm (decent sized and with a good reputation), so if they thought settling out of court was the right course of action, I can only assume it was because they thought they had a weak case.

Second, without dredging it all up again, I remember after he was sent to prison, an investigative journalist from down south (can't remember his name) looked into the case and came up with a load of stuff that he said should have been put forward by Ched's legal team, first time around. I think that this was the basis of the "new evidence" and the retrial, etc.
Click to expand...
Don Hale. He’s not a southerner. Was editor of Matlock Mercury and got involved in the Wendy Sewell murder (Bakewell, 1970s).
 
Hamburg Blade said:
That's quite astonishing and baffling. I wouldn't have thought he had a leg to stand on and a quote from the firm of solicitors agrees: 'We are glad that Ched Evans has agreed not to pursue this case, which we believe was entirely without merit. Brabners put forward a strong defence of Mr Evans claim following a thorough process and we were prepared to vigorously defend our handling of the case.'
So why have they settled? And for so much?
Click to expand...

Because they would have thought there was a strong possibility that the case would have gone against them but they have to put a brave face on it: they're hardly going to say "Brabners is happy to have reached a settlement with Mr Evans which avoids us being eviscerated in court and having to pay out more" :-)
 
Grappler said:
First, Brabners are a decent legal firm (decent sized and with a good reputation), so if they thought settling out of court was the right course of action, I can only assume it was because they thought they had a weak case.

Second, without dredging it all up again, I remember after he was sent to prison, an investigative journalist from down south (can't remember his name) looked into the case and came up with a load of stuff that he said should have been put forward by Ched's legal team, first time around. I think that this was the basis of the "new evidence" and the retrial, etc.
Click to expand...

The new evidence was controversial and, if I remember correctly, was rejected several times before an appeal allowed it. I may be mistaken as to whether it was the same evidence that was rejected and then later allowed. Either way, it is clearly not negligently omitted evidence that could have been expected to have been brought in by his defence lawyers. Not only that, but how much are your lawyers expected to investigate the case - trying to dig up witnesses such as ex-sexual partners? I've never heard of that before. It doesn't sound to me like they had much to defend.

BushBlade said:
Firstly, they’re lawyers so they’re not stupid enough to admit any kind of culpability. So ignore their statement. It’s as believable as the crap politicians come out with.

Secondly, they know no one looks good in litigation. No one wants their small mistakes amplified and broadcast to the public. Almost every job I’ve done I can look back on with the benefit of hindsight and think ‘I could have done x a bit better, I should have worded y a bit clearer etc. Negligence cases are horrible. You’re supposed to carry out your work with the skill of an average practitioner in your field. That means you’re not expected to be perfect but the QC acting against you has to build a case, so he or she goes through every little mistake you’ve made, everything you could have done better, to try to paint a picture of you as being negligent. In a high profile case it can be very damaging to your reputation.

Thirdly, ultimately they failed to keep him out of jail when there was little hard evidence of what happened. There often isn’t in such cases but we’re talking about high paid barristers here. Would another barrister been able to make a stronger case on his behalf? You’d think so. The fact the conviction was overturned suggests so.

Fourthly, did they advise him of all his options, particularly the final, successful appeal?

Fifthly, it may have been a decision taken by his PI insurers. He may have been due for a lot more if he’d won and perhaps they didn’t want to take the risk. That would suggest they’ve risked profiled it but that in itself wouldn’t be easy. There’s often an element of guesswork in cases like these as they’re quite individual. You’re looking at balance of evidence rather than beyond reasonable doubt. It’s quite subjective.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure you can ignore the statement completely. It's very strongly worded. For the reasons I mention above, I doubt they think they're culpable. I get that they would prefer not to be dragged through the courts and they may be looking to protect their reputation, but settling for 800,000 isn't exactly a shining badge of honour either. The argument about there being little evidence is, I think, wrong. There was enough for the CPS to bring the case and the new evidence used to bring about a retrial and (presumably) reverse the verdict was both controversial and not readily available at the first trial - I don't think that is good enough reason to blame his defence lawyers.
If it was a decision by the insurers, that would make more sense, as they simply play the odds game and aren't interested in anything else.
 
Balham Blade said:
Because they would have thought there was a strong possibility that the case would have gone against them but they have to put a brave face on it: they're hardly going to say "Brabners is happy to have reached a settlement with Mr Evans which avoids us being eviscerated in court and having to pay out more" :)
Click to expand...
No, clearly not, but a more neutral tone would have been fine.
 
Balham Blade said:
Because they would have thought there was a strong possibility that the case would have gone against them but they have to put a brave face on it: they're hardly going to say "Brabners is happy to have reached a settlement with Mr Evans which avoids us being eviscerated in court and having to pay out more" :)
Click to expand...

Yep, I think the opening line says it all! and they have to say the rest, which I think is probably pretty standard stuff.

We are glad that Ched Evans has agreed not to pursue this case, which we believe was entirely without merit. Brabners put forward a strong defence of Mr Evans claim following a thorough process and we were prepared to vigorously defend our handling of the case.'
 



Hamburg Blade said:
No, clearly not, but a more neutral tone would have been fine.
Click to expand...

Like I said Hamburg, I think this is probably the standard line they have to say in these cases.

Brabners (or any big law firm) would want to avoid going to court at all costs, if they thought there was a chance they would lose the case. Just going to court would be bad publicity and losing would be shockingly bad, for their reputation and future business.

The part that amazes me is the amount of money, if correct. I would have expected a lot more if someone had been in prison for two and a half years.
 
Davalon said:
That's not Ripley is it? :eek:
Click to expand...

Apparently a key moment when the team lost the jury was where we flexed his braces, leant back on his heels, and casually remarked “now I’m not a big city lawyer, just a humble Premier League title-winning ex-footballer just trying to make his way in life...”
 
Grappler said:
Like I said Hamburg, I think this is probably the standard line they have to say in these cases.

Brabners (or any big law firm) would want to avoid going to court at all costs, if they thought there was a chance they would lose the case. Just going to court would be bad publicity and losing would be shockingly bad, for their reputation and future business.

The part that amazes me is the amount of money, if correct. I would have expected a lot more if someone had been in prison for two and a half years.
Click to expand...
Are you? It seems like a hell of a lot to me. I think we are influenced by American TV and news reports from America, where payouts are huge for the tiniest things. In the UK you tend to get some lose change and a sticky washer. If you're lucky.
 
Can we apply for 'compo'. for failing to be promoted ?
 
Hamburg Blade said:
Are you? It seems like a hell of a lot to me. I think we are influenced by American TV and news reports from America, where payouts are huge for the tiniest things. In the UK you tend to get some lose change and a sticky washer. If you're lucky.
Click to expand...

He has lost over 2 million in wages and two and a half years of freedom. I would say 800k (again, if that is correct) is not a massive figure.

I don't want to argue about it though, we all have opinions on this sort of stuff.
 
Grappler said:
He has lost over 2 million in wages and two and a half years of freedom. I would say 800k (again, if that is correct) is not a massive figure.

I don't want to argue about it though, we all have opinions on this sort of stuff.
Click to expand...
I know, but in the UK I don't believe it works quite like that. I could be wrong, maybe someone with experience or knowledge of this can enlighten us.
I remember reading about a case where a bloke took a garage to court because they did something wrong and the subsequent cost to him (it was a Porsche) was very high, much higher than the cost of the initial work done by the garage. He won the case and the judge awarded him damages, but it was no where near what he was looking for. The judge said something to the effect that he hadn't understood how the system of awarding damages worked and he would have been best taking an earlier (lower) settlement offer.
 
BushBlade said:
Don Hale. He’s not a southerner. Was editor of Matlock Mercury and got involved in the Wendy Sewell murder (Bakewell, 1970s).
Click to expand...

I did 2 weeks work experience at the Matlock Mercury when he was there. Wore those funny shirts which were popular with stockbrokers in the 1980s
 



You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Bobby Boo
Premier League Players Of The Season
Replies
2
Views
1K
JPBrods
JPBrods
originaltrueblade
Now this comes as no surprise
2
Replies
57
Views
8K
Numpty's Dusty Ruts.
N
Mendi
Jags !!!
Replies
28
Views
3K
Deleted member 23679
D
Mendi
CONFIRMED Hecky Sacked
9 10 11
Replies
322
Views
43K
metalblade
metalblade
JPBrods
Mail Sport: Sheffield United consider move to bring Chris Wilder back as manager
10 11 12
Replies
335
Views
36K
Pedro's Winger
P

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

Back
Top Bottom