Torrix1889
A reight Bobby Dazzler
What is the point in a re-trial, he wouldn't go down........for a third time...
Cheddar Evans to SUFC?
- Thread starter SUFC Guy
- Start date
All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?
Sheff de party
Well-Known Member
I would imagine the vast majority of what is evidence in court is not priven
There would need to be significant new evidence that Clayton was guilty to try him again. It'll just be Ched.
He won't get a retrial, as he's already served his sentence.
I'd imagine they'll either quash the conviction (then Ched would sue the court/prison and more than likely receive a huge payout) or they'll say the conviction stands, with no other appeals.
I'd imagine they'll either quash the conviction (then Ched would sue the court/prison and more than likely receive a huge payout) or they'll say the conviction stands, with no other appeals.
1889
Well-Known Member
There could still be a retrial, irrespective of the fact he's served his sentence.
If the conviction was found to be unsafe, he wouldn't be proved innocent, but he would no longer be 'convicted Rapist Ched Evans'.
He wouldn't be able to claim compensation, unless he was able to prove his innocence.
If the conviction was deemed to be unsafe, I think there would be a significant swing in public opinion. He would be in the same position as he was prior to his original trial and I don't think many would object to him resuming his career.
There could be a retrial yes, but there won't be in this case.
Wapping Blade
Well-Known Member
Why are you so sure, the prevailing view seems to be that there will be a retrial if the appeal succeeds.
vorpal blade
Well-Known Member
- Banned
- #38
it would be very hard to find jurors who hadn't heard too much about the case
JohnDenver
¡No Pasarán!
I disagree - it's minor news in scheme of things.
If it involved someone from X-Factor or Strictly or similar then it would be much harder. Yet I'd be the perfect juror.
vorpal blade
Well-Known Member
- Banned
- #40
What's Strictly - X ?
super_pig
Well-Known Member
can he play centre half??
vorpal blade
Well-Known Member
- Banned
- #42
indeed, over recent years he has become overly conversant with catenaccio.
davidblade
Active Member
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2016
- Messages
- 2,201
- Reaction score
- 2,107
Personally i cant see it , this article seems to explain the law well.
There was a time when a defendant could not be tried for the same offence twice. This ruling, often referred to as “double jeopardy”, was on the basis that as the individual had been found not guilty, it should be left at that.
This was to avoid a scenario where an innocent party could be continually retried until the police, or prosecution, got the result they were looking for. It could perhaps also be seen as a way of trying to ensure a more efficient court process whereby there were fewer cases before the courts and perhaps, at least in theory, the police investigations would be more thorough knowing that they had only one opportunity to prosecute the individual for that offence.
The problem with the double jeopardy rule is that it allowed for the absurd and unjust position in which an individual could be tried for murder and be acquitted and later evidence could emerge clearly demonstrating they did indeed commit the murder. But this person could not be retried due to the double jeopardy rule.
Largely as a result of this potentially unjust position, the double jeopardy rule was abolished under the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which came into effect in April 2005. Since then it has become possible to be tried for the same offence twice.
Limits on retrying someone
There are, however, severe limits on retrying an individual for the same offence. This is due to the reasons that were behind the double jeopardy rule originally; it would clearly be wrong for the police to be able to prosecute an individual several times not only because this would have a disastrous effect on the individual’s life, who may after all be innocent, but it would also allow the police to be slack with their first investigation knowing that they will have another attempt if unsuccessful. This would lead to more cases being brought to what are already extremely overcrowded courts.
As a result of this, should the crown prosecution service wish to retry somebody for the same offence they must apply to the director of public prosecutions, who can only grant permission if they deem it to be in the public interest. This will generally only be done where there is “new and compelling evidence”.
The reason for this is to uphold the civil liberties of the accused, as per the original position in which an individual could not be retried for the same offence, but have a vehicle so that a retrial can occur in cases in which it is clear that the original trial may well have reached an unsatisfactory and unjust outcome.
An example of a case retried
An example of somebody being retried for the same offence can be seen in the case of murdered teenager Stephen Lawrence.
New-found forensic evidence was deemed “new and compelling” enough to enable a retrial. This was in addition to the fact that at the original trial there were severe failures on behalf of the police and accusations of institutional racism which therefore lead to a retrial being in the public interest.
There was a time when a defendant could not be tried for the same offence twice. This ruling, often referred to as “double jeopardy”, was on the basis that as the individual had been found not guilty, it should be left at that.
This was to avoid a scenario where an innocent party could be continually retried until the police, or prosecution, got the result they were looking for. It could perhaps also be seen as a way of trying to ensure a more efficient court process whereby there were fewer cases before the courts and perhaps, at least in theory, the police investigations would be more thorough knowing that they had only one opportunity to prosecute the individual for that offence.
The problem with the double jeopardy rule is that it allowed for the absurd and unjust position in which an individual could be tried for murder and be acquitted and later evidence could emerge clearly demonstrating they did indeed commit the murder. But this person could not be retried due to the double jeopardy rule.
Largely as a result of this potentially unjust position, the double jeopardy rule was abolished under the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which came into effect in April 2005. Since then it has become possible to be tried for the same offence twice.
Limits on retrying someone
There are, however, severe limits on retrying an individual for the same offence. This is due to the reasons that were behind the double jeopardy rule originally; it would clearly be wrong for the police to be able to prosecute an individual several times not only because this would have a disastrous effect on the individual’s life, who may after all be innocent, but it would also allow the police to be slack with their first investigation knowing that they will have another attempt if unsuccessful. This would lead to more cases being brought to what are already extremely overcrowded courts.
As a result of this, should the crown prosecution service wish to retry somebody for the same offence they must apply to the director of public prosecutions, who can only grant permission if they deem it to be in the public interest. This will generally only be done where there is “new and compelling evidence”.
The reason for this is to uphold the civil liberties of the accused, as per the original position in which an individual could not be retried for the same offence, but have a vehicle so that a retrial can occur in cases in which it is clear that the original trial may well have reached an unsatisfactory and unjust outcome.
An example of a case retried
An example of somebody being retried for the same offence can be seen in the case of murdered teenager Stephen Lawrence.
New-found forensic evidence was deemed “new and compelling” enough to enable a retrial. This was in addition to the fact that at the original trial there were severe failures on behalf of the police and accusations of institutional racism which therefore lead to a retrial being in the public interest.
Davie Blade
#WeAreAllDanielBlake
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2013
- Messages
- 1,680
- Reaction score
- 2,021
just give me a straight forward fucking coffee with milk in.
Finn Keane o' Balmaqueen
We defy you! Do your worst!
I love the smell of cut and pastes in the morning.
Jonboy60
Well-Known Member
We have another juror people.
Similar threads
All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?