Wozzer Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 He has not been what ? He was found guilty.... He failed to appeal it... His last hope is a case review that over turns 2% of the small number of cases it sees.... So what am I not getting ? See above - bloody phone! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 See above - bloody phone! You only get to appeal if you actually have something new to present... He had no leg to stand on... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
josh_latics Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 On the plus side, the more Taylor, Bruce, Redknapp talk about it, the less focus on Latics (until we inevitably cock up next). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danoafc Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 and why was that ? He had no new evidence ? So how has he been found guilty twice if he was allowed no appeal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 So how has he been found guilty twice if he was allowed no appeal? Ok maybe I should of worded it better first time around but that is in effect what happens when they look at your application for appeal and reply back and say "you are having a :censored:ing laugh aren't you lad" or in more realistic terms "refused".... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevie_J Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 My understanding it that Evans was refused leave to appeal his conviction by a Court of Appeal judge in 2012........ Which essentially means he appealed and they rejected his appeal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 On the plus side, the more Taylor, Bruce, Redknapp talk about it, the less focus on Latics (until we inevitably cock up next). True Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 Which essentially means he appealed and they rejected his appeal. Exactly, thank you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevie_J Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 So how has he been found guilty twice if he was allowed no appeal? He hasn't. He was found guilty at trial. The Court of Appeal didn't accept that the original verdict should be overturned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilStarbucksSilkySkills Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 You only get to appeal if you actually have something new to present... He had no leg to stand on... So why are you saying he's been found guilty twice? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 So why are you saying he's been found guilty twice? Why do you ask questions already asked and answered... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilStarbucksSilkySkills Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 Why do you ask questions already asked and answered... I'm waiting for it to be answered once. Do you have a problem with pluralising or something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 I'm waiting for it to be answered once. If you could read I said I could of worded it better.... Not off with the troll. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wozzer Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 · Hidden by Stevie_J, January 9, 2015 - No reason given Hidden by Stevie_J, January 9, 2015 - No reason given Could have worded that better too Link to comment
oafc0000 Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 · Hidden by Stevie_J, January 9, 2015 - No reason given Hidden by Stevie_J, January 9, 2015 - No reason given Could have worded that better too No doubt... Link to comment
IceStationLatic Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 I presume it's not just any new evidence either, as they accrued a fair bit as shown on his website. I suppose it had to be quite substantial evidence around the actual deed, which hasn't been possible because there was just the stuff in the room involving the three of them that had already been out before the jury, the video I presume had already been seen, and the messages she was alleged to have sent were deleted. The new appeal is basically to do with pointing out something that was done wrong, procedure wise or law wise, in the trial? This is his only hope. Perhaps there may be some hope, judging by the fact the rather schoolboy error was made of not charging his mate with aiding Evans' rape (and only charging him with rape individually, which he was cleared for having met the girl earlier in the night and she went to hotel with him thus indicating consent). That was the reason he wasn't jailed and Ched was despite both of then being so involved... But if it's successful, the entire sentence is quashed and he's completely cleared. No retrial. As I understand it.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilStarbucksSilkySkills Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 If you could read I said I could of worded it better.... Not off with the troll. Alright...I stand corrected. Looks like it was you said that 3 minutes before my question. I apologise. That's the problem with a thread that updates 10 times before I can click "post", and to make matters worse I keep being redirected to some annoying health advert at the moment. So what does "Not off with the troll" mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 But if it's successful, the entire sentence is quashed and he's completely cleared. No retrial. As I understand it.... I thought the review would lead to a retrial ? Not sure... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 · Hidden by Stevie_J, January 9, 2015 - No reason given Hidden by Stevie_J, January 9, 2015 - No reason given So what does "Not off with the troll" mean? Should of read "now off with the trolling".... Link to comment
oafc0000 Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 · Hidden by Stevie_J, January 9, 2015 - No reason given Hidden by Stevie_J, January 9, 2015 - No reason given and to make matters worse I keep being redirected to some annoying health advert at the moment. Same here Link to comment
PhilStarbucksSilkySkills Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 · Hidden by Stevie_J, January 9, 2015 - No reason given Hidden by Stevie_J, January 9, 2015 - No reason given Should of read "now off with the trolling".... Who's trolling? Link to comment
oafc0000 Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 · Hidden by Stevie_J, January 9, 2015 - No reason given Hidden by Stevie_J, January 9, 2015 - No reason given Who's trolling? You have since explained what happened... Link to comment
Stevie_J Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 I presume it's not just any new evidence either, as they accrued a fair bit as shown on his website. I suppose it had to be quite substantial evidence around the actual deed, which hasn't been possible because there was just the stuff in the room involving the three of them that had already been out before the jury, the video I presume had already been seen, and the messages she was alleged to have sent were deleted. The new appeal is basically to do with pointing out something that was done wrong, procedure wise or law wise, in the trial? This is his only hope. Perhaps there may be some hope, judging by the fact the rather schoolboy error was made of not charging his mate with aiding Evans' rape (and only charging him with rape individually, which he was cleared for having met the girl earlier in the night and she went to hotel with him thus indicating consent). That was the reason he wasn't jailed and Ched was despite both of then being so involved... But if it's successful, the entire sentence is quashed and he's completely cleared. No retrial. As I understand it.... Apologies for being pedantic but the current process in Evans's case is a review by the Criminal Cases Review Commission, which is not an appeal. Evans appealed to the Court of Appeal, made various submissions, and the CoA determined that there were not grounds to overturn the original verdict. His review may be based on procedural failings or on new evidence. If his review is successful, his case will be referred back to the Court of Appeal. The CCRC cannot quash his conviction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevie_J Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 I've hidden a bunch of tit-for-tat, "who's the troll?" type posts. It's boring. Knock it off, please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diego_Sideburns Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 It appears that the rarely-wrong Chron was the only media outlet to report that Corney had quit and Barry Owen's position is in doubt. http://www.oldham-chronicle.co.uk/news-features/8/news-headlines/89746/corney-quits-as-ched-deal-off It now says: Club owner and chairman Simon Corney is thought to be considering his position after denying initial claims he had resigned. The future make up of the Latics board remains uncertain. http://www.oldham-chronicle.co.uk/news-features/10/oldham-athletic-news/89776/latics-battle-to-restore-tarnished-image Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts