Ched Evans rape case ‘sets us back 30 years’

Ched Evans rape case ‘sets us back 30 years’

  • 2 hours ago
  • From the section Wales
Image copyright Wales News Service

Details of the sexual past of a woman who accused Ched Evans of rape should not have been heard in court, a former solicitor general has said.

The 27-year-old footballer was cleared on Friday of raping the 19-year-old woman in a hotel room.

Vera Baird QC told the BBC that the case had set things back “about 30 years”.

Mr Evans was found guilty of rape in 2012, but that conviction was quashed in April.

The Chesterfield striker was accused of attacking the woman at a Premier Inn in Rhuddlan, Denbighshire, on 30 May 2011.

The original conviction was referred to the Court of Appeal following a 10-month investigation by the Criminal Cases Review Commission, which found new information not raised at the original trial.

The evidence concerned two other men who claimed they had sex with the woman around the same time of the alleged offence and who described their encounters with her in highly specific terms that were similar to Mr Evans’s own account of what had happened.

Image copyright Getty Images
Image caption Ched Evans was playing for Sheffield United at the time of the alleged rape

Northumbria police and crime commissioner Ms Baird told the BBC’s Today programme she viewed this new information as “irrelevant”.

“How, in this case, it was ever allowed for evidence that this woman had allegedly had sex with other men, when the questions in the trial were was she so drunk that she lost the capacity to consent and did he reasonably believe that she was not that drunk and in fact she was consenting?”

Since 1999, defence lawyers have been banned from cross-examining alleged rape victims in court about their sexual behaviour or history but the Court of Appeal said Mr Evans’ case was exceptional.

Lady Justice Hallett ruled that the events were so similar to what Mr Evans had described that a jury had to hear about them before deciding whether the woman had been incapable of giving her consent.

Ms Baird, who was instrumental in bringing about the change in law, added: “The only difference between a clear conviction of Mr Evans in 2012 and the absolute refusal of him having any leave to appeal at that time, and his acquittal now, is that he has called some men to throw discredit on [the woman’s] sexual reputation.

Image caption After his aqcuittal Mr Evans issued an apology “to anyone who might have been affected by the events of the night in question”

“That, I think, is pouring prejudice in, which is exactly what used to happen before the law in 1999 stopped the admission of previous sexual history in order to show consent.

“We’ve gone back, I’m afraid, probably about 30 years.”

Criminal barrister John Cooper QC insisted the new information allowed by the Court of Appeal had been relevant to the case.

Ms Baird’s comments did the jury a disservice, he added.

“We are dealing with juries in the 21st Century, men and women who understand ways of life and understand that allegations of rape like this need to be properly tested.

“We don’t have and shouldn’t have attitudes going back 30 or 40 years. These are modern juries, applying modern, proper standards we all uphold.”

One thought on “Ched Evans rape case ‘sets us back 30 years’

  1. POINTS of CONSIDERATION:

    – Having sex with an individual without the consent of that individual is rape!

    – Assuming consent by the individual having sex with is rape!

    – When the individual having sex with is drunk then the sex is rape!

    – The number of partners the individual having sex with had in the past does not mean the individual having sex with is consenting to the sex!

    – Sex with an individual while that individual is forced to submit to that sex is rape!

    – Having consented to having sex with an individual does not mean that when the consent is withdrawn the sex is allowed to continue, as then it becomes rape!

    – Regardless of the number of sex partners by an individual, the actual sex-partner is held to the principle of the partner given consenting, if not then that specific partner is a rapist!

    CONCLUSION:
    Considering the above considerations, mister Ched Evans is a rapist, as although the referred to women had more then one sex-partners at the specific event she was too drunk to consent to the sex with mister Evans, and thus mister Evans should have realized and known that no consent was given nor to be assumed to have sex with the women!

    Even when the referred to woman would have had numerous sex-partners at the specific event, mister Evans had the responsibility to obtain the consent of the referred to woman to have sex with him, were observing and knowing she was too drunk to provide such consent, such consent was unable to be obtained by mister Evans!

    The principle consensual sex means that every act of sex with an individual by an individual involves the duty and responsibility of obtaining consent of sex-partners when and while they are able to give such consent knowingly and while being aware of the reality of the moment.

    Anyone being too drunk to give knowingly consent to having sex with an individual is incapable of giving such consent and an individual having sex with such an incapable or incapacitated individual is a rapist, even when the incapacitated individual gives consent!

    My opinion!

    Like

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s