oh good...

[JJ Sefton]

You would be imposing a negative consequence on him because of your choice, just as SUFC would be on Evans because of their choice; SUFC having made their choice because of the wider implications of employing a rapist.

Given that, I can't see what is wrong with people asserting to SUFC that the negative consequences outweigh the positive in re-employing him and should not do so. It is up to SUFC if they listen to that.

My point all along. I am also free to have an opinion on a psychologically damaged sexist using my team to grind an axe and boost her profile.

 

[Darren]

Darren could you clear a legal point up for me?

https://www.crimeline.info/case/r-v-ched-evans-chedwyn-evans


When anyone refers to the sentencing remarks of the judge as proof that the victim was thoroughly incapacitated in this case i'm minded to tell them they're speaking complete horseshit, but i don't for fear of being caught out.



In my understanding of the law, the reasonable belief in consent covers both the reasonable belief in the capacity to consent as well as the reasonable belief in consent itself.

By virtue of the fact that Macdonald got acquitted, surely the victim cannot have been so incapacitated by alcohol that neither defendant could reasonably believe that she was capable of consent?

Therefore it strikes me that the judges sentencing remark of ....

""The complainant was 19 years of age and was extremely intoxicated. CCTV footage shows, in my view, the extent of her intoxication when she stumbled into your friend. As the jury have found, she was in no condition to have sexual intercourse. When you arrived at the hotel, you must have realised that."[

....is complete bollocks.

No, the judge must be right. Had she not, as a matter of fact, been found by the jury to be incapable of sex, both men must have been found not guilty. CM can only have got off on the reasonable belief point.

 

[Darren]

My point all along. I am also free to have an opinion on a psychologically damaged sexist using my team to grind an axe and boost her profile.

Of course. Which is what I said about 27.000 posts ago

My point is that it is not therefore objectionable as imposing an extra punishment on Evans for JH to say SUFC should not re-employ him. She has no power to impose any punishment and we are agreed that SUFC are perfectly within their rights not to employ Evas because of the the conviction, even though that imposes an extra penalty on him.

 

[Highbury_Blade]

No, the judge must be right. Had she not, as a matter of fact, been found by the jury to be incapable of sex, both men must have been found not guilty. CM can only have got off on the reasonable belief point.

ok, yes the jury found she was incapable of consent but mustn't macdonald have had both a reasonable belief in consent as well as a a reasonable belief in the capacity to consent?

 

[Darren]

ok, yes the jury found she was incapable of consent but mustn't macdonald have had both a reasonable belief in consent as well as a a reasonable belief in the capacity to consent?

Yes, but that does not make the judge wrong. Just that CM reasonably believed she could consent and did consent, when in fact she was incapable of consent. They must then have found that Evans rushed in and without even bothering about consent, plunged in, as it were.

As I say, you have to get into some convoluted arguments to make logical sense of the verdict, but the fact that you can just about do that was why the Court of Appeal refused him permission to appeal. The CA will only overturn jury verdicts if they cannot possibly make sense.

 

[Highbury_Blade]

Yes, but that does not make the judge wrong. Just that CM reasonably believed she could consent and did consent, when in fact she was incapable of consent. They must then have found that Evans rushed in and without even bothering about consent, plunged in, as it were.

As I say, you have to get into some convoluted arguments to make logical sense of the verdict, but the fact that you can just about do that was why the Court of Appeal refused him permission to appeal. The CA will only overturn jury verdicts if they cannot possibly make sense.

So potentially the jury could have believed him when he said he'd obtained consent, but by virtue of the fact that he'd not spent any time with the victim, he could not have had reasonable belief in her capacity to consent?

 

[Punk Blade]

So potentially the jury could have believed him when he said he'd obtained consent, but by virtue of the fact that he'd not spent any time with the victim, he could not have had reasonable belief in her capacity to consent?

Unless he thought "she must have the capacity to consent otherwise my mate's just raped her".

 

[Highbury_Blade]

Unless he thought "she must have the capacity to consent otherwise my mate's just raped her".

You can't obtain consent by proxy, so if that was ched's reasoning then he's a bigger idiot than I thought

 

[Punk Blade]

You can't obtain consent by proxy, so if that was ched's reasoning then he's a bigger idiot than I thought

Come on HB, you italicised 'capacity' yourself in your post!

I'm saying if he walked in the room and assumed a rape wasn't in progress, then he must have believed that she had the capacity to consent.

Whether she consented to either of them is an entirely different matter.

 

[Highbury_Blade]

Come on HB, you italicised 'capacity' yourself in your post!

I'm saying if he walked in the room and assumed a rape wasn't in progress, then he must have believed that she had the capacity to consent.

Why? All he'd be doing then is repeating someone else's mistake.

 

[GRUMPY BLADE]

I fear you may have read only the first sentence of my post.

You think people read that far?

 

[Bladepicker]

Thought occurs; we need a striker, lets sign Tanni Grey-Thompson. It'll send a message about United's commitment to disabled people's rights.

She'd be more mobile than Higdon.

 

[Darren]

So potentially the jury could have believed him when he said he'd obtained consent, but by virtue of the fact that he'd not spent any time with the victim, he could not have had reasonable belief in her capacity to consent?

Unlikely. If he said she said "yes" when he asked if he could join in and the jury believed him, a jury must then have found that he had a reasonable belief in consent and capacity to consent in that the complainant had clearly understood the question and answered it.

I don;'t really think you can seperate consent and capacity to consent here. The bottom line was that if they thought Evans' story might be true he was NG. As it was, they must have been sure it was untrue

 

[Darren]

Why? All he'd be doing then is repeating someone else's mistake.

Indeed. He might have believed that. The point is whether it was a reasonable belief. The jury obviously found it wasn't.

 

[bladeinspaceandtime]

So if he came for a job for SUFC and they said "we won't employ you because you have a conviction for rape", that would be wrong of them?

Whats the legal standpoint on that, though? He's about to serve his sentence in the big house (and thus paid his dues to society in the eyes of the law), he applies for a job and is then turned down due to the conviction. Could be viewed as a form of discrimination surely?

 

[Darren]

Whats the legal standpoint on that, though? He's about to serve his sentence in the big house (and thus paid his dues to society in the eyes of the law), he applies for a job and is then turned down due to the conviction. Could be viewed as a form of discrimination surely?

No. It's perfectly lawful to refuse to employ someone because of their criminal record.

 

[Punk Blade]

Why? All he'd be doing then is repeating someone else's mistake.

Not really. His information is different to his mate's.

If he assumed the first act wasn't rape then he'd have reasonable belief that she was capable or consenting (a condition of his assumption that it wasn't rape).

If the converse was true and he walked into what he thought was an act of rape then whether or not Evans got involved I can't see how McDonald wouldn't have been found guilty. If he then did get involved then it's an even easier guilty verdict for Evans.

If you're right and he repeated someone else's mistake, then someone else would have been found guilty also.

 

[essexblade87]

I'm sick of all these Marlon King threads

 

[Dec]

So let me get this right...

In the eyes of the law, going back to a hotel with a man, gives that man reasonable belief of consent - despite the apparent fact that she wasn't capable for said consent?

Surely McDonald would have had a better idea of the state of the girl, and more of a chance to determine that she wasn't (according to the verdict) capable of consenting. This is what I've never understood so if anyone can run me through this I'd be grateful.

 

[Kev Gee]

Just get him signed and get the shitstorm over with for fucks sake.

 

[sitwell]

I agree ,keep quiet let everyone get giddy for a bit and carry on.

 

[Darren]

So let me get this right...

In the eyes of the law, going back to a hotel with a man, gives that man reasonable belief of consent - despite the apparent fact that she wasn't capable for said consent?

Surely McDonald would have had a better idea of the state of the girl, and more of a chance to determine that she wasn't (according to the verdict) capable of consenting. This is what I've never understood so if anyone can run me through this I'd be grateful.

It is a bit strange, yes.

The only way I can see that they found CE guilty is on his behaviour appearing to be single mindedly focused on just getting a shag (diverting the taxi, coming in the room univited, whilst telling a crap story about how he was "curious") and I assume they took the view that he did not care either way if she was capable of consent and/or consenting and just got in there - hence no reasonable belief in consent as he gave no thought to consent.

The other altenative is that they thought Evans was just a total sleaze bag whereas MacDonald's behaviour was more "normal". Obviously, not a proper basis for a guilty verdict but possible.

That's the problem with juries. You never know if they did follow the law properly or just went off on a tangent. The Court of Appeal won't interfere with a jury's verdict if it is possible to see it logically. As you can see a logical basis for the verdict here, that's why he did not get permission to appeal.

 

[Punk Blade]

Indeed. He might have believed that. The point is whether it was a reasonable belief. The jury obviously found it wasn't.

So in the eyes of the jury it was unreasonable for Evans to believe that McDonald hadn't raped her, but reasonable for them to believe that McDonald hadn't raped her?

Well that makes sense.

 

[Highbury_Blade]

So in the eyes of the jury it was unreasonable for Evans to believe that McDonald hadn't raped her, but reasonable for them to believe that McDonald hadn't raped her?

Well that makes sense.

I think if you ran your reasonable belief in capacity to consent on the basis that "Well my mate fucked her, so she should have able to consent to him" you wouldn't get very far.

 

[yuley82]

The thing that is so strange about this case is they weren't arrested at first for rape, the police didn't know they'd even had sex with her until they admitted to having sex with the girl (I'm being polite). Now if they had gone into that first interview and answered with no comment to questions they would have been released with no charge!

 

[Punk Blade]

I think if you ran your reasonable belief in capacity to consent on the basis that "Well my mate fucked her, so she should have able to consent to him" you wouldn't get very far.

Maybe you wouldn't, but that view would stack just as heavily against the co-defendant, surely.

 

[Highbury_Blade]

The thing that is so strange about this case is they weren't arrested at first for rape, the police didn't know they'd even had sex with her until they admitted to having sex with the girl (I'm being polite). Now if they had gone into that first interview and answered with no comment to questions they would have been released with no charge!

Yes, but they wouldn't have been aware of the victims statement at the time that they gave their statements.

 

[RealMcCoy]

Huge respect to Darren and his adherence to the correct legal and other arguments here.....and his determined patience.

The judgement in the case may seem "odd" but the decision is what it is. If you think it's wrong, then get onto a "Ched is innocent" forum. Don't march out arguments here that we should reemploy him because you think he is innocent or that the conviction is dodgy or a miscarriage. SUFC doesn't want to engage in that debate. Inappropriate.

Listen to Jim Phipps again. The first decision SUFC have to make is about "brand" not about football.

I can see different sides of the core arguments, but regrettably because people/fans will chant "He can shag who he wants" I don't think SUFC should re-sign him. Doesn't matter what I think of those people/fans. I just don't want to be in the same stand.

 

[SwissBlade]

She's making a political point, not a legal one, as have said 473 times.

She's implying that the striker formerly known as rapist is not for to play professional sport but is unaware of the law

 

[Lawrence]

Regurgitated yet again but up to 90,000 signatures now

I have heard a lot about this petition, I would presume that this vote or petition is a document and is available to scrutiny, or is ithe 90,000 figures just been plucked out of the air and given to the media, I know the media love to jump on a story but have they even asked to see the petition? Could someone please request to see this document, or is it the case that no one know who as commission it?