Ched Evans – Not Guilty of rape

Ched Evans – Not Guilty of rape



On 14th October 2016, after a trial that lasted two weeks, former Sheffield United and Wales footballer Ched Evans was found not guilty of rape.

There is a long history in relation to this case (see below for our pieces on it), including two trips to the Court of Appeal. The second one, earlier this year, resulting in the conviction being quashed and sent for a re-trial on the basis of fresh evidence that the jury did not hear.


What was the fresh evidence?

The appeal was allowed on the basis of there being fresh evidence that the first trial did not hear.

At the time, there was an order prohibiting publication of the details.

During the trial there were some details published, but these seemed to be more in the local than the national papers. Much of it appears to relate to the sexual behaviour of the complainant – normally something that is not admissible in Court unless there are exceptional circumstances.

Much of it seemed to relate to showing that the behaviour of the complainant on the night of the alleged rape was how she would have behaved during consensual sex, including the specific phrases used.

For example, someone who had sex with the complainant two days before Mr Evans did “said she told him to “go harder,” a phrase similar to what Mr Evans claims she used with him in a hotel room.

Another example was a man who had “slept with the complainant multiple times in the months leading up to the alleged offence said he picked her up after a night out on 28 May 2011 and described her as being drunk when he took her home“. The complainant ““came on to” him in bed, saying: “Are you not even going to rip my clothes off?”

Not only was it the case that she ““dictated” how the sex occurred”, she also “told him to “go harder”.

The Swansea Sound reported that “A man who slept with Ched Evans’ accuser two weeks after she was allegedly raped by the footballer has told a court that she used the same phrase during sex with him“.

Why was this evidence admitted?

It is right that as a general rule evidence of the complainant’s sexual activity with a defendant is inadmissible. This is all the more so when it relates to sexual activity with people other than a defendant.

The reason for this is obvious – it’s generally not relevant. Even if such questions were to be allowed, in most cases a defence lawyers would not want to ask them anyway. Saying to a jury that a woman had sex with another man the week before would probably be met with a shrug and a resounding “so what”, and would run the risk of a jury thinking “if that’s your best point, you can’t have much faith in your client’s defence”.

Very occasionally, this evidence is relevant and this case provides a good example. The best thing is to read the Court of Appeal judgement which sets it out clearly, but we will have a quick look now.

The first point is that such evidence is admissible by way of rebuttal, ie to contradict an assertion made by the prosecution.

In this case the complainant in her police interview said that she would not have sex with men she didn’t know. There was evidence to rebut that at the first trial, but the prosecution decided not to call the above evidence from the victim, and so the rebuttal evidence fell away (incidentally, this shows how strict the rules are – the fact that a complainant tells an untruth to the police could be seen as relevant in itself, but the prosecution could in this case shut down that line of evidence by not using it).

The second area is more complex, and more contentious. The Court of Appeal concluded that the evidence set out above of the complaints behaviour on other occasions was sufficiently similar so that it cannot be explained by a coincidence. For that reason, it was evidence that the jury should have heard in assessing whether they were sure of Mr Evans guilt.

It should be noted that this was in accordance with what Mr Evans said when he interviewed by the police, before he was aware of all the above evidence.

Does this mean woman can be asked about their sexual history? Does it change the law?

No and no. This was a very unusual case and it will remain the case that it is only in exceptional cases that such evidence can be put before the jury.


So, can I call Ched Evans a rapist?

No. He has been acquitted by a jury, and should be treated as being innocent.


What does this mean for the complainant? Will she go to prison?

No. It is a common misconception, but a not guilty verdict does not mean that the complainant lied or anything like that.

A jury cannot convict unless they are sure that a defendant is guilty. A not guilty verdict sheds no light as to what the jury thought about the quality of her evidence.

In any event, it is quite possible that both parties in a rape case can be telling the truth

It needs to be remembered that the verdict does not mean that the complainant can be named – she retains her right to lifelong anonymity.


Background Reading

This case has obviously generated a lot of interest, and we have looked at it on numerous occasions. Here are some of our pieces :

Legal Proceedings

Other matters

Dan is a barrister at 2 Dr. Johnson’s Buildings practising in crime.


  1. Useful guide for the twitter condemnation classes
    – might be worth editing that hear /here typo in the short Para after “What was the fresh evidence?”


  2. Were the jury instructions correct? I have not read the transcript, but the instructions I read did not go to the issue of whether or not the victim was capable of consent.

    • Andrew here is a quote from you back in May……

      “From what little I know of the case he was rightly convicted and rightly sentenced, but as long as he does not identify the complainant – which he did not – he can’t be stopped from campaigning – unpleasant though his modus operandi is.

      This jury, let me add, seem to have got it right. They acquitted the other man, whose case was different. …… But they convicted the man who was obviously guilty and acquitted the man in whose case they saw doubt which they considered reasonable.”

      Would you like to retract any of that now ?

      I said in one of my comments around the time to you and the likes of LES that there was new evidence on the way and to wait for the appeal. I’m slightly surprised it did go back as the scuttlebutt was that the new evidence would mean a virtually zero chance of conviction, but I guess the CPS had to be seen to be doing something. The CoA rarely quash convictions, so it should have told everyone that something was not right.

      This brings me to the subject of compensation. Bearing in mind he was a highly paid and highly valued footballer at the time of conviction, and having lost 4 years of his career, does this mean there is some entitlement to compensation ?

  3. I retract nothing; there was new evidence which was not before the first jury.

    I had my doubts about the wisdom of the CPS in applying for a retrial or the CoA in granting one; the complainant had to go through it again, there will probably (the law notwithstanding) be a new wave of namings on social media, and she msut feel that she has been “convicted” which she has not been.

    • Andrew, your comments in all the threads on Evans were particularly damning towards him – not even a hint that something could be amiss – and still in the comment above you have sympathy for the woman not Evans. Morally you can judge his actions, but legally he is clear. But what of her actions now he is finally cleared ? What is your moral judgement there ?

      I laughed at a comment in a previous thread when you quite adamantly said he would not get back into football and I disagreed – how did that work out ? The truth is now that he has been fully cleared I suspect that a significant number of clubs will be on the phone to Chesterfield FC who signed him after the CoA decision. Wait for the January transfer window is my new prediction Andrew.

      • So far as appears she has been truthful throughout. I see no reason to call her into question.

        The verdict is no more than this: that the jury were not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that he raped her. It is not a finding that he did not.

        And now a concession – you know more about football than I do. I did not guess how low that business could sink. You did. Congratulations.

        • “In this case the complainant in her police interview said that she would not have sex with men she didn’t know. There was evidence to rebut that at the first trial..”

          How does that fit with your “So far as appears she has been truthful throughout”?

    • Andrew, if the jury was entitled to be sure of Evans’s guilt on the basis of the evidence they heard in 2012, then clearly they would still be sure now. Logically, you can only be sure of something in the absence of a piece of evidence *if that evidence could not possibly make you unsure*. Otherwise, you’re simply guessing based on an incomplete and knowably inconclusive picture.

      N.B. As far as anyone has reported, none of the evidence heard in 2012 has been deemed inadmissible for this retrial.

      That leaves two possibilities:
      -The jury in 2012 were wrong to be sure, and the 2012 “guilty” verdict was incorrect.
      -The jury in 2012 were right to be sure, and the 2016 “not guilty” verdict is incorrect.

      I’d be interested to know which one you think it is, and why.

      • Juries decide on the evidence they hear. The first jury was satisfied on the evidence beyond reasonable doubt on the evidence they heard. The second jury heard broadly the same evidence (except the evidence of the other man whom neither side called) but also the new evidence which Lady Justice Hallett and the judges with her in the CoA thought was admissible and were not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt. You might not like either result but there is no logical inconsistency.

        • The 2nd jury got to see the initial police interview given by the woman in this case.

          They also asked the judge to see it again during deliberations.

  4. I don’t really know all the evidence or care about the result but I was expecting something much stronger for the “new evidence”. It’s ridiculously weak, particularly when compared to the stuff the CoA often throw out. Is it possible there might be more new evidence that we’ve still not heard?

    I mean, was this a jury full of virgins? It’s a bloody stock phrase!

  5. The fact the first trial had two defendants must surely have played a part. The prosecution case would have been much clearer the first trial. The retrial jury may have found it harder to be sure that it became rape only after Ched Evans arrived. Even without the ‘new evidence’.

  6. I still believe he is a guilty as he was during his first trial and am convinced that access to money or wealth can buy you a verdict. My thoughts are with his victim and the shocking way that Ched Evans and Clayton MacDonald (and the film crew half brother and friend of half brother) treated her. My only other statement on this matter is should anyone find themself raped, based on this case, do not rely on the law for justice. Get justice anyway you can.

    • We are but a minority, L-E-S; but in any event the verdict does not mean that he is not guilty. Just that a jury were not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt. I fear it is the end of the road.

      Yours in siblinghood as ever.

      • Of course it means he’s not guilty – you are innocent until proven guilty in this country

        Whether you think he did something wrong or not is besides the point, he is a 100% innocent man who has suffered a horrendous miscarriage of justice

        Imagine if you can, how it must feel to have your life, reputation and career ruined by being falsely accused or rape

  7. 1; Where can we find the Appeal Court’s reasons? (Or the directions to the jury?)
    2; In what sense could evidence of the complainant’s history be relevant to Mr Evans’ evaluation of her capacity to give consent, at the time?
    (On TODAY, Vera Baird said it couldn’t be. Mr cooper said it was, but didn’t explain why.)

    • 1. The CoA’s reasons will probably go on the BAILII website. The directions to the jury will not be published.

      2. We will have to wait for the CoA’s reasons.

      • Thank you, Andrew.

        1; Yes; we await the AC judgment, there.
        But isn’t there an open justice problem in the fact that the directions are not available?
        Mr Cooper is boasting on Twitter that he has discussed the case with the “legendary” Mr Humphrys.
        Meanwhile, we don’t know what the appeal court reasoning was or what the judge told the jury. Without both it will be impossible to bottom this case, I suggest, and it will become a running sore.
        2; I set this as a separate question as I agree with Ms Baird. Would anyone care to express a personal view, before we, belatedly, hear from the AC, on an issue that Baird says should have gone to the Supreme Court?

        • Once is an example, twice is a coincidence and thrice is a pattern.

          The two new UNNAMED witnesses gave accounts of what they believed to be the woman in this case’s consenting during sexual relations. They were very similar to the account given by Ched Evans to the police when first arrested.

          Furthermore, the second of the two new UNNAMED witnesses stated that the woman in this case said she had woken up the following morning claiming she could not remember what had happened.

          “I was surprised because I did not think she was that drunk,” he said. “She seemed capable of making decisions.”

          • Disappointing, Andrew.

            Where does the word “Every” appear in my post?
            My wife is a witness service volunteer and can evidence the awful private difficulty that complainants experience in the crown court.

            This is a watershed case, even if you seem unable to recognise it.
            It is essential that the AC’s reasoning, and the judge’s interpretation of it in this case, are in the public domain asap.

          • Thank you for the CoA judgment.

            As for the directions; if you don’t believe me that directions to juries do not set precedents I can’t help it, but it is once in a blue moon that they even appear in law reports. They are so fact-specific that it cannot be otherwise.

            If you mean that it would be interesting to read Mrs Justice Nicola Davies’ instructions, of course I agree, it would be, but as a news item, not as a source of law.

          • Thank you, Andrew.
            You haven’t commented on the status of the case; and are apparently hiding from my suggestion, widely felt, that the case is precedent-making.
            Don’t you think that it would be helpful to see the directions?
            And if not, why not?

          • A Crown Court can’t make a precedent, only the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court (and the High Court in certain circumstances) can make precedent.

            As to what the directions were, they are fact specific, but in terms of the legal directions, the Judge would have used the ‘Bench Book‘ – have a look at 20-19.

          • “widely felt” is passive voice. Please tell me by whom?

            I know that some people, lawyers and not, think it may influence charging decisions, but that does not make it legal precedent.

          • Andrew and DB
            You are both talking like dumb barristers at the CC lacking any sense of the feelings of complainants.

            As to the legal point, it is ridiculous to suggest that this case has no precedent value. Please explain how judges will resist references to the case in future?

          • I’m not sure why you say that – how does what either of us have said lacks ‘any sense of the feeling of complainants’?

            I think that Judges will be able to manage pretty well without any reference to it.

          • DB

            How will judges manage “without any reference to it” when it will be endlessly cited as reason to introduce evidence of complainants’ history?

            I am suggesting that your insensitivity to such issues is damning.

          • I just don’t think it’s going to be cited at all, let alone endlessly. It’s possible one or two lawyers will refer to the Court of Appeal judgment in a s41 argument, but there is no point of principle from this case that is of wider implication.

          • Dan
            You are delusional if you don’t recognize that your brethren will take every possible opportunity to cite this case and say that their case is also “exceptional”. That’s what barristers are trained to do; init?

          • Well, time will tell I suppose, but I really don’t think that that will happen.

            I also don’t agree with your premise that defence lawyers would want to ask complainants about their sexual history in most cases. It’s generally not relevant and it would just make you look desperate.

        • There is an error in para 43 of the judgment where it reproduces section 41 of the YJCEA incorrectly.

          Before the words “it id an issue of consent” put (c)

          Indent the para beginning “to any sexual behaviour of the complainant” and put (i) before it.

          Indent the para beginning “to any other sexual behaviour of the complainant” and put (ii) before it.

          Then it works.

  8. There would have been a much easier way to deal with all of this – never getting the police involved. Everyone would have had to move on with their lives and put this behind them.

    Thanks to the authorities being involved, now everyone still has to move on with their lives and put it all behind them, with the addition of 5 years of hell for all involved, 2 and a half in jail for Evans, endless costs, a ruined career, complainer that had to change name and location and so on.

    The police are a vehicle to implement political agendas. It’s got to the point where you have an argument with a partner, you say something unpleasant and you end up arrested for domestic abuse.

    The only people better off after this incident – the lawyers involved.

    • I concur.

      If there were awards for the . . . . ermm justice industry then the police officers involved and the cps who took up the baton would be given a special “services to the industry” award.

      Five years of very profitable mileage out of this one and, I would guess, no sleepless nights suffered for the collateral damage caused, namely two young lives screwed up.

      As a man, who liked to foretell the future, once said “Woe unto you also, ye lawyers! for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers.”

  9. How odd, rich footballer found not guilty after appeal and it’s a travesty of justice. Had he been a penniless refugee it would have been a beacon of truth in an uncaring world. Don’t talk about justice for all, Evans was stuffed in the first trial by his career and fame.

    • Agreed. Justice for all is an utopia.
      And to think that Police and CPS act in the interest of absolute justice, that is also utopia.

    • 19 grand will buy a pretty decent Mini I guess! 😉
      Madness to think people are donating on a page created by a fictional character with unverified account.

      The Pacteau example is totally inappropriate to compare. He’s an aggressive and dangerous predator. Evans and the complainer were responsible adults on a night out.
      The failure in convicting Pacteau at his rape trial lies in the ineptitude of police and COPFS to put together a strong case. It’s unfortunate. Sadly when they get it wrong, criminals walk free. Some other times when juries get it wrong innocent people go to jail. Remember the case of Mark Pearson, charged with sexual assault for walking past a woman in a busy train station?
      You can’t see the 2 sides of a story in a balanced way because you’re an extremist and have blind faith and belief in your views, no matter what the evidence says but if that’s the case you should be prepared for disappointment (like in this retrial) because not everyone shares the same views.

      • Mansplain away Ched EVans and his friends and half brother are a bunch of little shits. Applaud them if you wish it says everything I need to know about you.

        Pacteau was acquitted of rape, like Ched Evans, is his victim a liar? Even when I regard the case, much like the Ched Evans one it beggars belief that he was acquitted (my belt buckle accidentally came undone ffs) He argued (successfully) for the other side to the “two sides” but rape is not an even stevens situation what you men lovingly refer to as “he said, she said” or my personal favourite “grey areas”. Karen Buckley would still be alive but for the man-made misogynistic rape laws that allows the most outlandish of defences so he walked free and the rest is history. And had he not murdered his victim would never have been vindicated. There’d be men calling for her to be locked up for making a false allegation or “crying rape” another rape apologist phrase that’s one of my favourites. This happens time and time again.

        Furthermore, you call me an extremist. Let’s see shall we should someone enter your house, without your permission, maybe followed you home from a pub or club, restaurant and proceeds to have unprotected sex with you, or any member of your family who might be there, while another member or two of his group films it and comments at the same time. You can’t recall anything because you’d had several drinks too many but wake up knowing something’s wrong. He says you consented, even though he never spoke a word to you, and you can’t remember anything but you know you’d never consent to sex with another man and or a stranger who’s entered your home uninvited. Better still if he offers a reward to anyone who can get his conviction quashed at the CofA. Explain again how I’m the extremist and you’re the mainstream.

        Proud to be an extremist radical feminist who will stand up and say THIS IS WRONG. Yours in sisterhood.

        • I don’t applaud Evans. I think his behaviour was disgusting but I’m not convinced it was criminal.
          I followed his case with interest purely for one reason – I’m shit scared that one day a man (me, a friend or a stranger) could end up in jail as a rapist without having raped anyone.
          Mark Pearson never sexually assaulted anyone. Yet he ended up in court charged with sexual assault because he walked past (and possibly brushed past) a woman at a busy train station.
          These things scare me. The law should protect victims and often fails at that. And it should prevent innocent people from being dragged through court cases. And often fails at that too.

          This is going on for too long now and quite frankly I’m losing interest. You will always have the last word and any contrasting opinion will be dismissed as mansplaining.

          Off to donate to the jean hatchet page now!
          G night.

  10. that poor teacher in the rape trial walked free, quite rightly too. Won’t give you his name because he deserves anonymity too. I believe she made the whole thing up, so we’re about equal.

    Suck it up sweetheart. Have a nice weekend.

    • Sucking it up, aptly described what he did with his best mate’s semen, out of the vagina of a woman who was so incapacitated that she passed out & wet herself, while his little brother not only looked on he filmed it and commented “some fat bird” if I remember correctly. Seems a nice short of chap, a group of nice lads and a lovely family. Who wouldn’t defend them? No wonder Natasha went all Stand by Your Man must be the unprotected sex bit that won her over. The voyeuristic brother is now a maths teacher, the voyeuristic footballer is still a born again wanker. Which shows that there is no way of telling who these men are, they cannot be othered, they come from all walks of life and professions and they stalk our streets looking for prey because their prick needs to ejaculate. Thank God I’m a woman. Yours in Sisterhood.

  11. you need to get a life luv, typical feminsim trying to shout every other voice down. I’m so traumatised i don’t think i’ll get any sleep tonight. Actually I probably will. Whatever

  12. Let’s look at this another way. Accept for a moment what Me Evans says about his state of mind when he had intercourse with this young woman. Is there anyone who would be proud if it was our son, our nephew, any man we’d known from childhood?

    I don’t judge his parents and sister for standing by him – he’s their son and brother whatever happens. (Why his fiancée stood by him is more than I can understand).

    But no decent person, male or female, can regard what ON HIS OWN ACCOUNT he did without disgust. It’s not complicated. If a woman as drunk as she was consents, don’t take her up on it. Go without. You’ll get by.

    • In the interest of fairness, if one is putting behaviour on trial, shouldn’t one be an equal opportunities prosecutor ?

    • Andrew, during my lifetime – a period which I am constantly surprised to find takes us back nearly sixty years – I have seen a fundamental, and welcome, change in the way we think about sexual morality. This change has been driven by the work of feminists, gay rights activists, and campaigning lawyers, If I had to sum up that change in a single sentence, I would say that the nub of it is this: What matters is consent, not what disgusts or does not disgust us. Of course people do still experience feelings of disgust. Some people still find gay sex disgusting, even when it is consensual. Some find casual, drunken, and perfunctory, encounters in hotels disgusting, even when they are consensual. People are entitled to have such feelings but, to put it bluntly, they should keep them to themselves. Any attempt to re-introduce disgust into our judgements takes us back not thirty years, but fifty or sixty. This is particularly true if we are discussing a criminal case.

      You sound as if you have some doubts about the extent to which the particular case we are commenting on really was consensual. However, with respect, that is precisely the issue that has just been considered by twelve women and men in a jury room. Those twelve women and men were selected at random from the population, and it is pretty certain that they would include people who took much the same attitude to consent as you do. If the evidence heard offered any scope for people with your concerns to argue over consent, then discussion would have been long, fraught, and probably inconclusive. The discussion appears to have been neither protracted, nor inconclusive. The jury came to a unanimous decision and did so swiftly.

      If you think that there is some reason to doubt consent that was missed by the jury, then I think you ought to tell us plainly what it is, without bringing the notion of disgust into the discussion. If you find that your argument looks less persuasive when you put any feelings of disgust to one side, then it might be that it is an argument that should not be made.

      • I realise your comment was made to Andrew but can I ask you this are you suggesting that illegality and immorality are mutually exclusive?

        • Yes, my comment was made to Andrew. I generally avoid engaging you in debate because my last attempt to do so ended with you inviting me to, and I quote, “fuck off and go kill someone”. I am quite aware that something can be immoral without being illegal, but if you want any further clarification then you will have to wait until the question is put by someone capable of behaving like a grown-up. Andrew is, of course, perfectly welcome to ask me to elaborate on my views.

          • I only react like that when provoked so I’m sure it was well deserved. However I hope no-one lost their life. Take care. Yours in sisterhood.

      • David S

        Only nearly sixty? I am even older than you!

        I am aware that what is – or what some people regard as – immoral is not always criminal. Lesbianism was never illegal in this country even when it might be social death. For a much older man to have consensual intercourse with a woman of sixteen is not unlawful either although it savours of exploitation – but no doubt that is not always the case and anyway the line has to be drawn somewhere. (Some fool in the House of Lords has just introduced a bill to raise the age of marriage to eighteen without changing the age of consent which strikes me as beyond preposterous.)

        I wanted to widen the issue about Mr E beyond the limits of the criminal law. We know the position: a jury of his peers was not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that his state of mind was such as to make him guilty of rape; so be it. I don’t agree that the ruling of the CoA will open the floodgates – this was after all a very odd case from the beginning – although I do see the possibility that misunderstanding of it will discourage the reporting of genuine cases.

        But the fact of his acquittal does not and should not prevent others from forming a view about what on his own account he did. To accept and act on the consent of a drunken woman stinks.

        And those others – with the exception as ever of his immediate family – should have acted accordingly. He should not be welcome back into a line of work where young men are made heroes by impressionable boys. If I had a son of an age where it rested with me – which I don’t, my son has turned thirty – I would be horrified to think of him cheering on this man’s or his team’s performance on the field.

        Alan Turing was guilty of a criminal offence and one of the greatest public benefactors of his time. Mr Evans is the exact opposite: cleared of any offence but beneath contempt. He should be left to vanish into obscurity, with his foolish fiancée if she so wishes.

        Does that clarify what I SAID?

        • Well it does clarify what you said, but what you said did not need clarifying, and your clarification does not make it any more palatable. I am completely aware that there is a distinction between what is legal and what is moral, but I don’t see why you think I might have been confused. What I said in my post was that I had seen a change in our attitude to morality, not in the law (although there obviously have been changes in the law).

          In the light of that change, the attitudes you express seem backward and misogynistic, and I am a little surprised that LES has not yet taken you to task over them. You might have phrased them as a stricture on men’s behaviour but they are, to an equal extent, a stricture on women’s behaviour. If a man cannot accept drunken consent from a woman without attracting opprobrium, then any woman who is actually in the mood for some consensual sex will have to keep an eye on how much she drinks, lest she reach the stage where you, in your magisterial opinion, have decided that a right-thinking man would be obliged to turn her down even if she herself still feels perfectly capable of deciding what to do with her own body.

          As I said, morality (not just the law, but morality) should hinge on consent. You seem to have accepted that what happened in that Rhyll hotel was consensual and, if you have accepted that, then it is very difficult to say any more without your argument turning into a piece of slut-shaming. It is true, of course, that he had a drunken and casual encounter with someone he did not know, but then so did she (and you seem to have accepted that both of them retained the ability to consent). Now that sort of behaviour is not my cup of tea. My cup of tea is, well, a cup of tea, perhaps with some nice ginger biscuits and a clear half-hour in which to attack the Guardian crossword. Where I differ from you is that I accept that, while this behaviour is not my cup of tea, it is also – and since you seem to have developed a taste for the caps lock key, I shall likewise indulge myself – NONE OF MY DAMN BUSINESS. We long ago left behind the days when it was acceptable for elderly gentlemen such as you and me to express our distaste for what consenting adults decide to do with their own bodies. I have no desire to return to those days.

          • Apologies for the word in caps-lock – oversight.

            I’m not going to say it all again. As you say, it did not need clarifying.

  13. The one aspect of this that most seem to missing is the work of Inspector Knacker of the Welsh Constabulary. How does someone who enters a police station to report a stolen handbag come out accusing someone of rape…. allegedly….according to the rumours.

    Are we into the celebrity, sex and over zealous PC Plod territory again ?

    • I wake up my house has been broken into my handbag’s missing. I go to the police they note that I may have been drugged because I can’t remember anything at all. They investigate turns out I was drugged, I was also raped. However because I only reported my missing handbag, which has now been handed in, they take no further action. Christ.

      • You wake up in someone’s rented/leased house and cannot find your handbag.

        You cannot remember anything after the night before, a common occurrence when you are inebriated (another common occurrence).

        You also know you have been taking illegal drugs.

        You go to the police about the handbag and tell them the first part of the above.

        The police decide this may be more than a missing bag investigation.

        An examination reveals your body still in possession of illegal drugs but no evidence of sexual intercourse.

        The police again decide this is more than a missing bag investigation.

        • The police find you HAVE been raped, pay attention, there is eye witness testimony and video evidence but hey ho your bag’s been handed in which is what you complained about. Case closed. Christ.

          • The police decide they want to find more than your handbag.

            They question numerous people and obtain video footage from various locations.

            You are shown in conversation with one of the co-renters as well as arriving at the rented premises together.

            The other co-renter is seen arriving later and obtaining a key to the premises from the landlord’s agent.

            The same agent tells the police you and renter no 1 looked like a couple. He also reveals he stood outside the premises when renter no 2 arrived during which time he states he heard a male voice utter a sentence along with sounds that appeared to him as the sound of sexual activity.

            The police ask both renters to help them with their enquiries (presumably after kindly telling them anything they say MAY be used in evidence . . . in a truly cherry picking manner).

            The two renters are immediately very forthcoming in their revelations.

            The police initially pursue the rape theory writing “Titus Bramble” in the notebook ( seemingly an oversight when Tesfaye would have been more appropriate?)

            The cps decide the two renters are such credible witnesses that they are charging two people with raping you.

            Christ indeed.

            Divine PS: If we allow (with judicial permission) the admittance into this discourse of Jesus’ past sexual (talk) history, and with reference to John 8:11, he may well have instructed both renters and yourself that he wasn’t going to condemn any of you on this occasion BUT sin no more

  14. What I don’t get is the defensiveness with which men react to acquittals and to rape claims in general. If you’ve not raped anyone e.g. forced yourself on a woman (or man), coerced a woman (or man) into sex with you, failed to stop when they’ve told you to or indicated they’re hating every second of it, or felt someone up, without their consent, for example in a public place such as public transport. What are men afraid of? If you have done any of the above of course you should be marginally afraid but the changes are even if you did any of the above as long as she (or he) survived and is not badly hurt you’re going to get away with it.

    • “If you’ve not raped anyone e.g. forced yourself on a woman (or man), coerced a woman (or man) into sex with you, failed to stop when they’ve told you to or indicated they’re hating every second of it, or felt someone up, without their consent, for example in a public place such as public transport. What are men afraid of? ”

      A Sexual Risk Order ?

      • Is is it they knowledge that what they did might catch up with them and they’ll be held to account.

          • Good because we know men can’t control themselves. Dan said if they did a nobel peace prize would be in the offing and some other bloke wrote poetry “perchance to dream” were it to happen. Please note that’s men talking about men’s (not a feminist) lack of self control and their not raping anyone.

  15. Evidence of more cherry picking.

    With regard to the poetry, and for the avoidance of doubt, there was no gender discrimination.

    Lack of self control, sexually, appears to be a national sport.

    An SRO to accompany the national insurance number for everyone ?

    • Determined to ignore the stupidity of your own argument then that a police force should close a complaint because the complainant did not allege a crime, in this case rape (because she was out of it), but the police investigation uncovers it.

      “Perchance to dream” was what you said after you said “certainly men should not rape” you were gender specific. However I love how you attempt to rewrite history is it a man thing?

      SRO for everyman who is unable to control himself e.g. leaves the dream state and conducts himself like a sexual menace posing a threat to women (or other men) sounds entirely acceptable.

      • If I were to reveal I am a female, would you judge me guilty of High Treason against the Sisterhood ? Does life imprisonment in the Ninth Circle of Hell sound acceptable ?

          • Nice bit of alliteration or rather assonance but off the point. Male or female you were deflecting.

            Of course you’ve only got my word for it that I’m male and we’ve only got LES’s that she is female but somehow I believe it!

  16. Please sir(?) LES started it.

    I am unsure about what point you (both) think is being deflected.

    LES presented an allegory that I changed to reflect the facts (as accepted) of this particular case.

    LES also alleged I re-wrote history in the same paragraph of doing that very deed.

    A touch of LESsplaining suggested the usual suspect : the male.

    “Of course you’ve only got my word for it that I’m male and we’ve only got LES’s that she is female but somehow I believe it!”

    Andrew = Miss Andrew ? No evidence to support the supposition.

    LES = Miss Andry ? Beyond reasonable doubt.

  17. A little tardy I know but something I’ve been wondering – does S41 relate to the admission of sexual history in general or is it only for the sexual history of the complainant? I.e. can the prosecution introduce the defendant’s history at will or only if it meets the same tests of relevance?

    • A tenner says it’s to get men off rape charges therefore only applies to the Complainant aka the Victim.

      • Sorry LES but you cannot bet on certainties!

        Using a defendant’s prior convictions is as difficult in rape as it is in any other case – the bar is not set any higher.

        The more I look at it, the more I think the CPS would have done better to cut its losses and not ask for a retrial. Not good but the least worst. The judgment of the CoA should not lead to more applications for other sexual experience to be admitted being made or succeeding – but the result of the retrial may lead to fewer victims coming forward. If the CPS had said that in the interests of the young woman and as E had already served the most severe sentence he could get there would have been less damage done. But of course hindsight is 20/20, isn’t it?

        Damn Ched Evans.

        • “but the result of the retrial may lead to fewer victims coming forward”

          Let’s hope not but if it does it’ll be thanks to the irresponsible scaremongering of certain campaign groups in the media who deliberately gave the misleading impression that any complainant is likely to have their sexual history trotted out in court.

      • My phrasing was probably a bit confusing but what I meant was are there any restrictions on using defendants’ sexual histories? They can definitely be used but I was wondering if defendants have any protection under S41 or if the prosecution has free reign and the S41 protections are only for complainants.

  18. Caroline
    Based on the evidence of the two men who had sex with her just before and just after Evans with similar circumstances, Lady Justice Hallett said…. “In our judgement this is potentially such a rare case. The requirements of Section 41 must give way to the requirements of a fair trial”.

    Hope that helps.