Only if he had a rubber ladder - boing!
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Ched Evans
- Thread starter Brighton TID
- Start date
Only if he had a rubber ladder - boing!
Ceej
Active member
It's all a bit grim. In theory, you serve a prison sentence and then start again. If you trust the court then you start again after you're out. Some publications like the Mail though think they know it all and insist on not letting it lie. No different to saying he should have got 10, 15, 20 years.
User removed 4
New member
So you're happy with Jon Terry's innocence then, yeah ?
Eric Potts
Well-known member
Stealing one car age 15/16 , and having no further convictions or cautions would mean it would be filtered out after 5 1/2 years.
One mistake , you'd be OK , but two - you wouldn't.
FREDBINNEY
Banned
- Dec 11, 2009
- 317
I presume you're more than happy with Jon Terry's not guilty verdict then ?
FREDBINNEY
Banned
- Dec 11, 2009
- 317
I presume this same sentiment convinces you of Jon terry's innocence as well ?
try reading a little further, if the first sentence resulted in imprisonment, always disclosed........if not, well I guess the offender got lucky then. Why don't we comment on all the original arguments instead of trying to prove each other wrong. Do you think it is ok for society to further punish people after serving their prescribed sentence handed down by a court of law because of CRB/DBS and being in the public eye? Now I've calmed down a bit I apologise for being rude.
Eric Potts
Well-known member
No offence . I don't in general agree with punishments over and above what a Court sets out , being imposed by society ,
I'd hope that prison , for instance would help rehabilitate and retrain someone so they could find employment .
However I wouldn't want to see Ched Evans at BHA .
I'd hope that prison , for instance would help rehabilitate and retrain someone so they could find employment .
However I wouldn't want to see Ched Evans at BHA .
Until Evans is cleared, he should not be paid to entertain the public by paying professional football. If he is not cleared, I'd be uncomfortable if he played for my team. Ched's case is complex, if (and it's a big IF ) he is innocent but has been found guilty, I feel very sorry for him indeed.
I agree with you however, those that work with ex cons who have served time will tell you that rehabilitation is a bit hit and miss. It depends on the level of staff, availability of 'courses' and the time behind bars to dedicate to the individual prisoner. At this time there are over 83,000 prisoners in prison designed to cope with less than that. I guess they try to do their best but reading detail on institutions records, especially those run by private companies like serco remains grim reading. I wish all prisoners the best in being rehabilitated but the system sets you up to fail and Chris Grayling and his cost cutting doesn't help matters. Additionally most rehabilitation courses in prison are aimed from the bottom up so you might get basic education courses, basic trades courses and basic self help courses. There is no money for rehabilitation of those already able to read and write and in some instances those eligible for parole are being denied it because of the unavailability of the courses they are required by law to undergo, ie anger management.
You have to consider each case on its merits. Evans was found guilty "beyond all reasonable doubt" by an independent jury. Pretty conclusive IMHO. And he lost his appeal. Terry was found "not guilty" due to inconclusive evidence the burden of proof was not there. Not so conclusive. He was found guilty on the lesser "balance of probability" though.
How does our version of modern day justice sit with people with phrases like 'balance of probability' or 'joint enterprise'? Worries me. I always thought, perhaps naively with this new jargon, that you could not be found guilty if there was an element of doubt. Are these new schemes designed to make the police and justice systems easier? I also think you should be able to remain silent without it counting against you automatically. Seems like an excuse for lazy policing work.
Bold Seagull
strong and stable with me, or...
Joint Enterprise was established in English Law in the 1840's. Balance of probability is applicable in civil law rather than criminal law where beyond reasonable doubt still applies. You are able to remain silent, the current caution simply warns you that it could harm your defence if you don't mention something you later rely on in court. It therefore doesn't count against you automatically.
Thanks for that. So if you have an ace of cards up your sleeve in your defence you have to spill it immediately if asked, so you don't make an ass of the cps and/or police and then waste the public money I presume. Bit unfair that if you would like to make an ass of them in a public arena for getting it wrong.
Wow Bold seagull. Just looked it up about joint enterprise or 'common purpose'. For others who may be interested or can't be bothered searching:
In English law, the doctrine derives from R v Swindall and Osborne (1846) 2 Car. & K. 230, where two cart drivers engaged in a race. One of them ran down and killed a pedestrian. It was not known which one had driven the fatal cart, but since both were equally encouraging each other in the race, it was irrelevant which of them had actually struck the man so both were held jointly liable. Thus, the parties must share a common purpose and make it clear to each other by their actions that they are acting on their common intention so that each member of the group assumes responsibility for the actions of other members in that group. When this happens, all that flows from the execution of the plan will make them all liable.
Last edited:
Bold Seagull
strong and stable with me, or...
Not really, you have the right to remain silent so if your ace convinces the jury, or creates reasonable doubt, it won't matter you didn't mention it. However, it could be that you not mentioning it at first creates the impression that it's a lie. For example not mentioning an alibi immediately would raise the doubt that you concocted an alibi at a later date. Why wouldn't you say you were at your mums straight off if you later rely on being at your mums for your defence.
Was there an appeal? Why did his mate get off? This case seems very similar to the one at Jury's Inn. Check out Ched's website, do you think he deserves an appeal? There are a lot of people behind Ched on this, you have to ask yourself why?
The only reason I can think of is as I said because you are pissed about a wrongful arrest and wasting your time so you want revenge, spend money from the public purse for nothing and then make them look dicks in front of the judge! Pitiful I know but some might think that way.
He tried to appeal but the judges decided there were no grounds. I'm sorry but his case seems pretty emphatic from a judge (two times) and jury perspective. Unless his website contains new and significant evidence, which I doubt, then no he does not deserve an appeal. I have no idea why he apparently has people behind him. Most criminals have people who give glowing character references.
nwgull
Well-known member
They have applied again for an appeal in the past couple of weeks. For that reason they must have got their hands on some new evidence that his legal team reckons might change the verdict.