Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 3.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Court's decision delayed until April.

 

Crown prosecution says it will seek a retrial if Evans's appeal is successful.

 

Ah. Good for the prosecution!

 

I notice that Lady Justice Hallett is presiding. That's Lady Justice Hallett. I'm sure she'll take a wholly objective view of the evidence...although she might learn a few things she never wanted to learn about the lifestyles of association footballers. Hope springs eternal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Court's decision delayed until April.

 

Crown prosecution says it will seek a retrial if Evans's appeal is successful.

I doubt they'll get it, apart from the fact it will be a massive waste of public money since Evans has already served his sentence so won't get any further punishment, I can't see the victim being up for going back to court for another public showing considering she's already changed her name and moved house 5 times

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I doubt they'll get it, apart from the fact it will be a massive waste of public money since Evans has already served his sentence so won't get any further punishment, I can't see the victim being up for going back to court for another public showing considering she's already changed her name and moved house 5 times

 

I wouldn't like to speculate but I wouldn't have thought the Crown would make that promise if they didn't have witnesses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah. Good for the prosecution!

 

I notice that Lady Justice Hallett is presiding. That's Lady Justice Hallett. I'm sure she'll take a wholly objective view of the evidence...although she might learn a few things she never wanted to learn about the lifestyles of association footballers. Hope springs eternal.

I am amazed you, of all people 24, posted casting aspersions about a woman judge's objectivity. Frankly, I think it's inflammatory. By your emphasis, no male judge could be equally as objective.

I am sure she's heard it all before. She may have even seen behaviour on the starting scale from some of her learned friends over the years...

I can only think I have misread your emphasis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am amazed you, of all people 24, posted casting aspersions about a woman judge's objectivity. Frankly, I think it's inflammatory. By your emphasis, no male judge could be equally as objective.

I am sure she's heard it all before. She may have even seen behaviour on the starting scale from some of her learned friends over the years...

I can only think I have misread your emphasis.

Maybe the phrasing is a bit loose. What I was trying to say is that Lady Justice Tufton Bufton has a better chance of grasping the issues in the case than Lord Justice Tufton Bufton. I'd love to believe the criminal justice system and the people who operate it are gender and race and class neutral but they're not.

 

That's not to say that Lady Justice Tufton Bufton isn't capable of the same or worse thinking errors as Lord Justice Tufton Bufton.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds to me like new evidence has come forward that was NOT available at first trial.

This would have 2 consequences. An overturn of the conviction and the crown prosecution saying that the new evidence was not at the first trial and therefore was not considered by a jury and so we want a retrial so that a jury can judge the evidence

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect IF it went to a retrial it would have to be because they are prepared to accept new evidence, and seeing as that evidence is going to be submitted at Evens request then surely it would only benefit him.

 

all moot till the decision is handed down in a couple of weeks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The CPS cannot say what evidence they are prepared or not prepared to have submitted..the Court of Appeal are always very reluctant to interfere with Jury verdicts and as I understand it it is not their job to judge new evidence but to decide whether any new evidence COUlD have affected the original trial. If the defence had the evidence but did not use it they will throw it out but if it is new evidence which was not available to defence at first trial it becomes problematic but not a proof of innocence or guilt in itself

 

 

All capital IFs by the way

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you honestly think the CPS are going to go through the time, effort and cost of a re-trial not to mention the trauma for all concerned, particularly the alleged victim, when whatever the outcome he'll walk out of court at the end of it. It's not going to happen.

 

As I said...CPS will go through the time and effort...

 

A lot of people are forgetting something here...English Law is shaped by cases such as this. They set precedents. There is every reason to take this to re-trial should an acquittal occur as this case will no doubt be referred to in future cases of rape and consent. There is a public interest to obtain justice one way or the other and define the grey areas in this area of law. It may also significantly affect future rape victims/accusers of coming forward with their cases.

 

People need to not lose sight of this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Literally none us can know anything - that's the entire point of the decision made.

 

As we've once again drifted in to varied degrees of speculation I am locking this down until things are genuine public knowledge. Once again, once again, I will not prevent alternate threads if people genuinely believe they have something to contribute.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...