Nigel Evans Sex Case verdict in

Nigel Evans Sex Case verdict in


Nigel Evans


Nigel Evans, MP for Ribble Valley and former Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons was found not guilty by a jury on 10th April of the nine sexual offences that he faced. This was after only four hours or so deliberation by the jury.



The charges that Mr Evans faced were as follows :

  • one count of rape (in 2013)
  • two of indecent assault (in 2002-2003 – approaching two different men in their 20s whilst drunk and putting his hands down their trousers)
  • five of sexual assault (the exact allegations are not clear, but include cupping the genitals of a man in a House of Commons Bar)
  • one of attempted sexual assault (this was amended during the trial from an allegation of sexual assault – trying to kiss )

These were alleged to have been carried out between 2002 and 2013 on seven different complainants.

The indecent assaults are alleged to have been committed between 1 January 2002 and 1 January 2004.

The sexual assaults are alleged to have taken place between 1 January 2009 and 1 April last year, and the rape between 29 March and 1 April last year.


Further Reading

A couple of articles of relevance :

Celebrity sex trials 

There were new Sexual Offences Guidelines that would have applied to this case from 1st April 2014

Mr Evans remains as an MP and will presumably try to pick up the pieces and carry on with his life. Despite being cleared of all the charges, Mr Evans will be a poorer man – he paid privately and won’t get his money back.

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


    • Can anyone answer polruan’s question? The Law Society document Defendants’ Cost Orders seems to say that he had no choice:
      “After 27 January 2014 the ‘Transforming Legal Aid’ reforms introduce a financial eligibility threshold, so that anyone assessed under the means test on or after that date as having an annual household disposable income of £37,500 or more will be ineligible for legal aid in the Crown court.”

      But Clive Coleman on the BBC said that Nigel Evans could have applied for legal aid, but chose not to.

      • The financial eligibility threshold only applied for cases starting after 27th January 2014 (broadly) so it wouldn’t have applied to Mr Evans case. When Mr Evans case started he could have received legal aid but chose not to.

  1. Yet again a jury has considered the evidence and found the defendant not guilty.
    Juries are required to find evidence of guilt “beyond reasonable doubt” and generally they do use this criteria.
    When (less serious) cases are heard before a magistrate or judge the criteria for conviction appears to be “I believe”, not beyond reasonable doubt.
    This has been particularly apparent in non-sexual nudity cases, such as those of the ‘naked rambler and prosecutions of Naturists where the prejudices of the judiciary are seen as more important than the evidence or the law.

    The Caroline Lucas trial is adjourned at the moment but I wonder if the verdict would be the came if a jury were considering the evidence.

    A return to jury trials would see far more miscarriages of justice.

  2. There is far too much prejudice and injustice in the Criminal “Justice” System. Also far too much vague and poorly defined law that is wide open to abuse. Also a CPS and police far too willing to prosecute, not because there is a strong case, but because there is little or no consequences for them when they try it on. It is fundamentally unjust that acquitted defendants can have to pay crippling legal costs simply to defend themselves.

  3. In 2012 my families life was turned upside down following a false allegation of rape made against my teenage son. Although horrific were the allegations we were confident that the allegations would be proven to be false and malicious during the investigative stage as there was concrete evidence the allegations had never occured. This is where many of us first come into contact with how incompetent these types of allegations are now being dealt with.
    Innocent until proven guilty is a myth that is as dead as our legal aid system. Evidence to disprove the allegations are ignored in favor of case building to ensure a conviction is obtianed regardless of truth or justice. Impartial investigations are few and far between, dirty tricks and corruption is rife.
    Many like my son are kept on bail for many many months while we assume the police are ‘investigating’ these dreadful allegations. The reality i believe is something quite the opposite.
    CPS are not applying the 51% threshold test to these cases where no evidence is required in order to accuse just the word of sometimes just one person with an axe to grind. CPS are no longer testing evidence PRIOR to charging decision instead they are opting to try these cases at trial where the defendent has little hope of recovering his costs and there are no redress optons available to challenge this.
    My family endured 2 years of absolute hell while we were trapped in this system, only finally coming to an end at trial when the allegations were proven to be false following the complainant falsely accusing 2 other people.
    £100k this sorry situation has cost my family, an eye watering amount of money for most of us, my families life savings and more that will probably never be refunded to us. How can it be that a family are forced to defend themselves against allegations that can be proven way before charge are false? Yes i am bitter, Yes i am angry & Yes i am destroyed by this system that has broken everything that i ever had in my life.

    If this government wish to test all sexual abuse cases regardless of evidence or clarity then is it not right that the defendent upon aquittal is awarded costs associated with the prosecution? Only when CPS are held accountable for their actions with the government ensuring those who have been wronged by this sytem are compensated will these charade of allegations stop.

  4. Yes, costs should follow an acquittal, and if the CPS brief a silk that should include the costs of doing so for the Defendant.

    And there should be a time limit on police bail – three months, extendable once only by a further three months. The prosecute or don’t, and if you don’t, that’s the end of it.

    This is not the same as limitation – I have come to the conclusion that in serious indictable offences that would be wrong – it is about insisting that once the process starts it is not unduly protracted.

  5. Nigel Evans on two separate occasions, without consent, shoved his hands down two persons pants. There was his inappropriate behaviour with a third and an allegation of rape possible with a forth or with one of the earlier three. He may have been acquitted but this smokescreen of ‘I’m an innocent man’ is not fooling anyone with an ounce of sense. Had Nigel chosen to keep his hands to himself or sought explicit consent from the other party(ies), he would not have ended up in court. For that he only has himself to blame.

    • The jury heard all the evidence and found Nigel Evans was not guilty of doing what he was accused of. It is absurd to blame him for his arrest when he has been cleared of any illegal actions.

      • He may have “cleared” of illegal acts. Actually the allegations were deemed not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. But the fact is he did do these things illegal or not. Sexual harassment and a sex pest is nothing to be proud of and there is no-one to blame for what Nigel Evans did other than Nigel Evans himself. As much as he doth protest (too much) it’s a smokescreen. Instead of trying to blame everyone possible, except for himself, he should be saying I behaved badly, I landed myself in court as a result, and I unreservedly apologise.

  6. Spot on ,L-E-S. Of course if being limitlessly stupid was a crime we’d need a lot more prisons and not all male!

    • I wouldn’t worry about the rants of L-E-S. He/she would fill the prisons with anyone with an unusual lifestyle such as gays, Naturists, celebrities and I’d guess anyone from an ethnic or religious minority, but he/she cannot see any reason why a hedge fund manager who defrauds the railway companies of £43,000 should be investigated by the police.

      • If I had any lingering doubts about what evidence the UN Inspector used to determine, when she concluded, the UK is a big boys clubs, full of the stench of sexism and demeaning to women I guess she’d hold you up as a shining example Brian Johnson. A woman must not have an opinion which differs from a man isn’t that right Brian Johnson, she may not express said opinion isn’t that Brian Johnson, and she must not do so articulately cos the boyz, like you Brian Johnson, don’t like it. Well tough.

        And too right that naked rambler would be in jail after he’d first been birched.

        Happy to clear that up.

      • And furthermore if you are accusing me of racism, because I don’t agree that a naked man should be walking around wherever he chooses and offending public decency. I believe, and I am no lawyer, but I know a few some on this very site in fact that you are straying into defamation you might want to think about that. Yours in sisterhood

    • I agree there is no accounting for stupidity and drunken stupidity even worse I suppose I could blame the wine makers of France in the future, plus one particular South African company too (actually two come to think of it), should I do something really dumb under the influence of their wines. In fact I’m thinking right now of exactly how to frame this as mitigation without it sounding as though I’ve resorted to simply begging for clemency.

  7. I don’t think anyone is allowed to disagree with Brian, L-E-S , no sexism there!

    As for birching the Naked Twat the trouble is he might enjoy it!

    • I will reiterate Brian Johnson in case you didn’t understand me the first time. If you, Brian Johnson, accuse me of racism like you did above you are straying into the realms of defamation. I’ve told you twice now.

  8. I find it really rather disturbing that posters like Brian Johnson seem to feel they can spout the most extraordinary guff, and along the way accuse L-E-S of just about every prejudice in the book and then some, just because she dares to voice a dissenting view. She doesn’t seek to go behind the “not guilty” verdict (at least so far as I read her comments), but points out – quite fairly – that Mr Evans’ conduct (apparently drink fuelled on more than one occasion) was not entirely beyond reproach.

    I detect no hint of anti-gay sentiment, let alone racism, in her comments, and believe Mr Johnson owes her a very public apology.

    I don’t share her views on birching, but she is entitled to voice them, and nor do I think locking up the naked rambler is necessarily the best approach to the undeniable dilemma he poses, but just because I don’t agree with her every viewpoint is no reason to slag her off in the frankly offensive manner adopted by Mr Johnson, who may be revealing more of his own complexes than he would care to have dissected in public.