Ched Evans

[shewy]

I see he has had his conviction quashed, and a retrial is now on the cards.
Does that make him an innocent man now pending the outcome of the retrial?
Got to wonder what new evidence was shown for it to be quashed, were the police hiding past behavior from the victim? I know first hand that in a trial previous was not taken into account in a trial when it was the cornerstone of the trial and a miscarriage of justice took place.

 

[Ethan]

I wonder if Theresa May ordered the quashing of his conviction to take away some of the front page coverage from the EU referendum, Panama Papers and collapsing NHS.

 

[rosecott]

I wonder if Theresa May ordered the quashing of his conviction to take away some of the front page coverage from the EU referendum, Panama Papers and collapsing NHS.

In what way does Teresa May come into it?

There were three judges sitting on the appeal and the decision was from them and them alone.

Perhaps you do not believe in the independence of the judiciary.

 

[Ethan]

In what way does Teresa May come into it?

There were three judges sitting on the appeal and the decision was from them and them alone.

Perhaps you do not believe in the independence of the judiciary.

Take a pill. It was a joke. The judiciary is not entirely independent, though, although I am sure politicians were not involved in this case.

 

[Foxholer]

Take a pill. It was a joke. The judiciary is not entirely independent, though, although I am sure politicians were not involved in this case.

Notwithstanding the 'joke' of your original post, it's absolutely essential that 'the judiciary' IS independent - making rulings based purely on the evidence and their interpretation of the law as argued by each side's advocates - whether or not they actually 'like' the particular law, or the advocates arguments!

And that applies to every judge in every country, irrespective of the nature of the actual Government!

Any other way of working is totalitarianism or (other) corruption!

 

[Rooter]

Take a pill. It was a joke. The judiciary is not entirely independent, though, although I am sure politicians were not involved in this case.

I got it! i heard Ian Brady is due to be released 23rd June...

 

[User62651]

If he is innocent then the courts (or the accuser) have ruined his life and cost him tens/hundreds of thousands in lost earnings etc. Worrying that the conviction has been quashed and asks the question why could they not have analysed the evidence or whatever correctly the first time and if it was not conclusive why was he incarcerated?

More disturbed by the Norwegian verdict agreeing Breivik has been maltreated in jail by being isolated, the guy blew up some people then gunned down 70 odd kids when sane, he should be doing the hardest time there is. Something not right with 'justice' in so many countries but it's a difficult balance to find.

 

[Ethan]

If he is innocent then the courts (or the accuser) have ruined his life and cost him tens/hundreds of thousands in lost earnings etc. Worrying that the conviction has been quashed and asks the question why could they not have analysed the evidence or whatever correctly the first time and if it was not conclusive why was he incarcerated?

More disturbed by the Norwegian verdict agreeing Breivik has been maltreated in jail by being isolated, the guy blew up some people then gunned down 70 odd kids when sane, he should be doing the hardest time there is. Something not right with 'justice' in so many countries but it's a difficult balance to find.

There is no verdict of 'innocent' in UK law, just guilty or not guilty. The fact they have ordered a retrial suggests there was enough evidence to go to trial but that the case for a guilty verdict was not adequately proven.

I am not disturbed by the Brevik case. The question of his rights, however defined, should not be dictated by the public revulsion for his crimes. He is going nowhere, will die in prison.

 

[Stuey01]

There is no verdict of 'innocent' in UK law, just guilty or not guilty. The fact they have ordered a retrial suggests there was enough evidence to go to trial but that the case for a guilty verdict was not adequately proven.

I am not disturbed by the Brevik case. The question of his rights, however defined, should not be dictated by the public revulsion for his crimes. He is going nowhere, will die in prison.

Breivik was sentenced to 21 years, and it can be extended only if he is still deemed a threat. He is still a young man, I would say there is a very good chance he won't die in prison. Though I do hope he never sees freedom again.

 

[Ethan]

Breivik was sentenced to 21 years, and it can be extended only once, and only if he is still deemed a threat. He is still a young man, I would say there is a very good chance he won't die in prison. Though I do hope he never sees freedom again.

OK, thanks for the correction. I doubt he will be paroled, then.

Edit: according to a well known online source, the sentence can be extended indefinitely.

 

[Stuey01]

OK, thanks for the correction. I doubt he will be paroled, then.

I edited my post for accuracy, it can be extended multiple times, I misread that part.
I do hope they never deem him safe for release and continually extend his sentence, the man is a monster.

 

[Kellfire]

I am glad this has gone to a retrial as, from all the evidence that the court was shown, there was no way guilt was proven in my opinion.

 

[Pin-seeker]

I am glad this has gone to a retrial as, from all the evidence that the court was shown, there was no way guilt was proven in my opinion.

Totally agree.
If found innocent it will be interesting to see how many public apologies he gets.

 

[Ethan]

Totally agree.
If found innocent it will be interesting to see how many public apologies he gets.

He can't be found innocent, only not guilty, which is not the same thing.

Compensation for wrongful imprisonment is capped at half a million quid.

 

[Kellfire]

He can't be found innocent, only not guilty, which is not the same thing..

It's a de facto way of finding innocence as our legal system conforms to the Human Right of "innocence until proven guilty" means that not being found guilty equates to innocence. I know you're arguing the legal wording but I don't think that's what anyone here means.

 

[Ethan]

It's a de facto way of finding innocence as our legal system conforms to the Human Right of "innocence until proven guilty" means that not being found guilty equates to innocence. I know you're arguing the legal wording but I don't think that's what anyone here means.

But the point is that the verdict is based on whether there is enough evidence that he did it, in criminal cases beyond reasonable doubt (in civil on the balance of probabilities), and that leaves a lot of room for 'he did it, but we can't prove it'. Few people who have convictions overturned walk away with a perception of innocence unless someone else is proven to have done it, which is hardly likely here. May not be fair, but a lot of people will think he got away with it. If there had been insufficient evidence to go to retrial at all, I think people would maybe see him as more likely to be innocent. Although the police and prosecution may get their act together for the retrial and do a better job.

 

[shewy]

So getting back to my original point and not wording, innocent until proven guilty, so in the eyes of the law is he now deemed innocent as the verdict of guilty has been quashed?

 

[Tashyboy]

I see he has had his conviction quashed, and a retrial is now on the cards.
Does that make him an innocent man now pending the outcome of the retrial?
Got to wonder what new evidence was shown for it to be quashed, were the police hiding past behavior from the victim? I know first hand that in a trial previous was not taken into account in a trial when it was the cornerstone of the trial and a miscarriage of justice took place.

Shewy, listening to this on the radio coming back today and they said his legal team and Ched would be disappointed that he was found not guilty, and all charges dropped etc etc.
At the same time they would be relieved that Ched and his team were vindicated in pursuing this case and the future trial would prove his innocence.

 

[Papas1982]

If found innocent (not guilty). Then how does the girl get perceived?
To me it always seemed like he was out of line maybe taking advantage. But that it was no more than an encounter she felt ashamed of and went to trial to make her look better.

Does she she get dealt with for miss use of police time? For crying wolf etc? Not prejudging her as he's not been found not guilty. Just curious of repercussions?

if it's rushed through he still has time to forge a career, if a club is strong enough to take a punt. Surely less clubs will fear sponsors leaving if he's deemed innocent.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

So getting back to my original point and not wording, innocent until proven guilty, so in the eyes of the law is he now deemed innocent as the verdict of guilty has been quashed?

I would say he's gone from being a convicted rapist, to a suspected rapist.
Only the retrial will clear it up.