On Ched Evans, one little discussed but important point...
is that he was tried at the same time as another man for the same alleged offence with the same alleged victim on the same night. The other man was acquitted, Evans was convicted. That has always struck me as intrinsically odd, especially with the reported facts from the first trials of the victim's incapacitated state, and suggested the conviction would eventually collapse under scrutiny.
If the jury that convicted Evans did not hear all the evidence that was relevant to considering his guilt or innocence at the original trial, as the Court of Appeal has now ruled, there should of course be a retrial if the charge is still arguable.
Only in the event that new evidence was so conclusive of innocence that the CPS thought there was no prospect of a conviction should the charges have been dropped and that would never have been the case here where it was admitted by all parties that they were present and sex happened, so that intent and consent were the issues.
So there being a retrial is not "proof" that he's guilty, just the the charge remains arguable. Nor on the other side is he "being tried twice" for the same offence because the first trial is now officially set aside and never happened as far as the second trial is concerned.
Having said all that, the new evidence as heard by the Court of Appeal does by definition have to be in Evans' favour in order for the judges to have set aside the original conviction and order a retrial. Speculating wildly for a moment, it could be that it goes to the victim's statements on consent, perhaps being undermined in credibility terms by some admissions made on social media in previously undisclosed messages or subsequently deleted posts, which the defence were unable to obtain and admit as evidence in time for the original trial. But let's see.
My final thought, for what it's worth, concerns how Evans has been vilified by sections of the press and the social media mob for "not showing remorse" and this has been used as a rationale for not allowing him to work in his chosen profession, even while officially innocent in the eyes of the law as he'd been awaiting trial. First, that's factually wrong as he has expressed remorse. What he hasn't done is admit guilt to the charge and of course no-one who was actually innocent of a charge should be expected to do so. If he is eventually acquitted at retrial, will he still be morally wrong to have protested his innocence of the charge? By definition, no, but then the online mob will still have wanted to lynch him...
