Ched Evans – Retrial set for 4th October 2016

Ched Evans – Retrial set for 4th October 2016

Photo from the BBC / Wales News Service

We have covered the case of Ched Evans who was convicted of rape in 2012, and was sentenced to 5 years imprisonment.

His first appeal against conviction was unsuccessful, but after applying to the Criminal Cases Review Commission, his case was referred back to the Court of Appeal, who allowed his appeal and ordered a re-trial.

On 27th May 2016 he was ‘arraigned’ at Cardiff Crown Court – asked if he was pleading guilty or not guilty. He pleaded not guilty, and the trial date was set for 4th October, again in Cardiff, in front of Davies J.

We don’t have full details of what happened, but there would have been various directions made to make sure that the trial proceeds smoothly in October.

There are reporting restrictions in place, and for that reason we won’t be saying too much more at this stage. But we ill be keeping an eye on the trial.

*NOTE* – We will also be monitoring the comments for obvious reasons.

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


    • Yeah… Too bad for the poor who just have to accept when they have been found guilty wrongly!

      Playing the money card works both ways.

      I’m not judging guilt or otherwise here and YES many rapists do get away with it. But that’s not a reason to suggest that someone who may be not guilty shouldn’t do all they can to prove it!

      • As with Economou we see a dichotomy in the law. With false rape claims running at 33% (HMIC stats 2015) anonymity must be granted to defendants. In light of cases such as Elizabeth Jones of Hampshire (ELEVEN malicious allegations) a criminal offence must be brought in with a minimum ten year custodial tariff.

    • The law in its majesty allows both rich and poor alike to starve. I am sure you will support the arrest of Louise Mensch for naming the “victim”. Odd North Wales plod did nowt.

  1. Indeed. Legally aided defendants are not allowed the services of private investigators.

    I appreciate that the less said the better but Dan: if you know I think you can properly reveal how long the time estimate was?

  2. Two weeks! (Or nine days, 4 October is a Tuesday).

    I cannot help wondering if there is any point in this. Let’s suppose he is convicted again: rightly or wrongly, he gets a maximum of five years. he has served the custodial part of that and much of licence part. The worst that can happen to him is a few more months on licence. And the young woman concerned has had to go through it all again.

    Or he is acquitted. In which case after going back in the box she feels that she has been “convicted”.

    In either event no power on earth will prevent there being a fresh bout of crap on social media including people naming her and disappearing from view.

    There must be a substantial risk that this time it will be so high profile that a foreign newspaper (with an online edition?) names her – and there is nobody whose job it is to read foreign newspapers before they go on sale here, and nor should they be. When Jack Straw’s teenage son got himself in a scrape and the British press could not say which Minister it was I bought the Irish Times, name ad all, at a newsstand within spitting distance of Parliament and Scotland Yard.

    Just what is this going to achieve except to generate massive costs for m’learned friends?

    What do others think?

    • The poor little darling is to give evidence from behind a screen. There is no question of Ched Evans having anything added to his sentence. The good point you make is that de facto police states such as the UK cannot patrol cyberspace effectively, as it has no borders.

    • It achieves justice for a defendant who’s accused of a crime he believes he’s not guilty of. It’s quite a big deal, don’t you think?
      If he’s found not guilty this time, no one gives him back the 2 and a half years he spent in jail, but at least he’s still young enough to be a professional footballer which has massive career and financial implications for his future.

  3. The point is…tape is a crime, money shouldn’t buy justice and rapists shouldn’t be allowed to get away with it because it is inconvenient for them to be found guilty, so they are permitted to keep throwing money at the “problem”, the rape they committed, until they can make it disappear.

    If the rape victims are entitled to anonymity, so be it, what’s wrong with protecting victims of that crime from the lynch mob of rape apologists, rapists and their chorus line.

    • What is a rape apologist? I hear this spooge all the time. So any man falsely accused just shuts up? “They expected us to fade away” (Cardiff Three). L,E,S are you plod?

    • You’ve changed your tune. It used to be all about “I believe her” now it’s about his money.
      Yes having money helps. Lawyers and investigators are expensive.
      He’s not “getting away with it” – he’s paying a team of professionals to demonstrate that the charges brought by Police and CPS were wrong.
      Incidentally, Police and CPS get it wrong too sometimes. Haven’t you heard? Look up the sexual assault case of Mark Pearson. Did you “believe her” in that case too?

      You are furious that Evans’ private money is funding his defence. I find it even more infuriating that the tax payer money is funding wrong prosecutions.

Comments are closed.