So Chedward Evans has won his appeal...

[Burney]

...the bad news for him being that the prosecution has said they will seek an immediate retrial.

Clearly still guilty imo. :judge:

[Pokster]

Still strange that his g/f stood by him and that his F-I-L said he had a job for him whenever he wanted it.

Guilty imo

[reg]

...the bad news for him being that the prosecution has said they will seek an immediate retrial.

Clearly still guilty imo. :judge:

True, but it does at least strongly suggest the matter is not so clear cut as we might have liked to believe.

[Pokster]

True, but it does at least strongly suggest the matter is not so clear cut as we might have liked to believe.

I don't think it was ever clear cut... drunken consent is a dangerous thing to prove/disprove

[SWv2]

Unfamiliar as I am with the legal system I did not think a person could be tried twice on the same offence.

[Burney]

Unfamiliar as I am with the legal system I did not think a person could be tried twice on the same offence.

Clearly the grounds for appeal constitute (in the prosecution's view, at least) grounds for a retrial. In which case, yes, he can be tried again.

[reg]

I don't think it was ever clear cut... drunken consent is a dangerous thing to prove/disprove

You don't have to tell me; I'm a married man with half-a-dozen kids.

But is it normal to re-try someone based on new evidence which would actually prove them even more guilty, rather than get them off? Wouldn't that be a waste of everyone's time?

[Burney]

You don't have to tell me; I'm a married man with half-a-dozen kids.

But is it normal to re-try someone based on new evidence which would actually prove them even more guilty, rather than get them off? Wouldn't that be a waste of everyone's time?

It sounds to me as though the appeal was based on evidence that would lead to a mistrial being declared rather than on substantive evidence about the events themselves.

[reg]

It sounds to me as though the appeal was based on evidence that would lead to a mistrial being declared rather than on substantive evidence about the events themselves.

He got his people to lean on the jury, you mean?

[Burney]

He got his people to lean on the jury, you mean?

More like something prejudicial may have been done or said outside court that might have meant he didn't obtain a fair trial.

[reg]

More like something prejudicial may have been done or said outside court that might have meant he didn't obtain a fair trial.

OK. Right.

[Yesterday Once More]

It is the prosecution's prerogative to go for a retrial, but "innocent until proven guilty" is a core principle of British justice, so I hope some club will have the balls to offer the guy a living.

And before anyone quotes Adam Johnson: the key difference was that he pleaded guilty (albeit belatedly) to some of the charges, after months of telling his club he was innocent. It is clear that Ched Evans is not going to do that, indeed it is quite possible that when the dust settles after the retrial he will have served time that he should never have done for which he can never be compensated.

He should therefore be treated in accordance with the principles of justice while he is still young enough to earn a living from football.

[PSRB]

...the bad news for him being that the prosecution has said they will seek an immediate retrial.

Clearly still guilty imo. :judge:

Always struck me as very unsafe conviction, said a while back that he'd win his appeal