Talk:R v Evans and McDonald/Archive 1

Archive 1

Footballer 'Suspended' Over Rape Tweets

This is in the news today.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:57, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Clarification desired

All the information I've seen about this case indicated that the two men were in virtually identical circumstances and gave identical defenses which were mostly in agreement with each other. So if anyone can find a source explaining how the evidence could justify the jury finding McDonald innocent but Evans guilty, that would be a valuable addition to the article. – Smyth\^talk 04:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

This is something that will have to wait until the appeal. In the USA, it is routine for jurors to discuss the reasons for their decisions with the media, but this is less common in the UK.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:59, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not just less common, it's actually illegal for jurors to disclose what happened in the jury room. So we may never find out the answer to this question. PatGallacher (talk) 17:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm aware of the law restricting jurors, I just wondered if there was actually something in the evidence that I missed. – Smyth\^talk 16:10, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

See the Court of Appeal judgement. They weren't 'virtually identical circumstances'. McDonald had met her outside, and travelled to the hotel with her. He stopped Evans' brother and another friend trying to film what was happening from outside the window and, when he left through the front door of the hotel, informed the night porter that she was "sick" and needed looking out for. Evans turned up in the room, having lied to get the key, while McDonald was having sex with her. There is no evidence that she (or McDonald) expected or wanted him to be there. He may have asked the pair outside to film what happened (it's unclear how they found the right window so quickly unless he told them where to go). Both men denied on oath that they had asked her if Evans could have sex with her. No witness said they heard her "calling out to him on numerous occasions to 'Fuck me harder'" that Evans said she did (three or four people were in a position to do so). When he left, he did so via a fire escape.

The jury were specifically asked by the judge to consider their verdicts separately and clearly did so. In England and Wales, a conviction needs there not to have been consent and the accused not to have had a reasonable belief that there was consent. The jury must have decided that there was not consent (presumably due to lack of capacity because of intoxication - every witness not interested in having sex with her said she was extremely drunk) but that McDonald may have had a reasonable belief that there was and that, beyond a reasonable doubt, Evans did not. Lovingboth (talk) 15:37, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I will link the appeal judgement in the article. – Smyth\^talk 13:36, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like even the judge believed the jury's verdict was inconsistent. When sentencing Evans, he said: "CCTV footage shows, in my view, the extent of her intoxication when she stumbled into your friend [McDonald]. As the jury have found, she was in no condition to have sexual intercourse." – Smyth\^talk 19:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The verdicts for both men were unanimous and in refusing the initial appeal the Court of Appeal confirmed that there was no inconsistency. Yes, she was too intoxicated to consent, but a reasonable - albeit mistaken - belief in her consent is enough for an acquittal. The entire jury decided that McDonald may have had that.

However Evans did not. The vehemence of his denials could suggest that his belief in consent was genuine, and until the Sexual Offences Act 2003, a genuine but mistaken belief was a defence no matter how unreasonable. But since then, the belief has to be reasonable and, for the reasons given above, the entire jury decided that it wasn't. Lovingboth (talk) 11:49, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

That's a plausible analysis, though of course any description of the jury's reasoning is pure speculation unless one of them breaks the law and reveals it. – Smyth\^talk 12:45, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I can't see any other route to those verdicts, beyond tossing a coin (in which case at least one of the jury would have gone to the judge - see the case where some of the jury used a Ouija board to attempt to talk to a murder victim!) No-one seriously thinks the complainant lost capacity in the minute or so between McDonald finishing having sex with her (irritated at Evans' arrival and distracted by the giggling outside the window as Evans' brother and a mate attempted to film it all) and Evans starting to do so (despite both men denying on oath that they asked her if that was ok...) Lovingboth (talk) 09:03, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Complainant in WP:LEAD

Rape is a criminal offence, and the term "complainant" is analagous to the plaintiff in a civil lawsuit. This is why it was removed from the lead section. The R. in R. v Evans and McDonald is Regina, the Crown, not a civil law plaintiff.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:09, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

No, the complainant is the victim of a criminal offence, when the Crown is the prosecutor. See for example, its use by the Lord Chief Justice in R v H [2011] EWCA Crim 2753. In any event, what is important is that the source describes her as complainant. ISTB351 (talk) (contributions) 21:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Rationalisation of article

I have cut the size of the article quite substantially and removed a lot of irrelevant and/or repetitious material. The article has also been re-written in parts to avoid colloquialisms and misleading commentary. An infobox has been added, and the page moved. ISTB351 (talk) (contributions) 10:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

There was also a 13th arrest yesterday.[1]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Have updated the article to reflect this. ISTB351 (talk) (contributions) 11:04, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

The police have made another arrest, bringing the total to at least 17.[2] It will be worth following any court cases that arise from these arrests.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

New legal team

source IJA (talk) 23:58, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Clarification needed regarding date on which judgment was passed

There is a contradiction between the infobox and the body of the article regarding the date on which the case was settled (20 April 2012 vs. 24 April 2012) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.100.16.33 (talk) 17:08, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Changed to 20 April 2012, per source.[3]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:17, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for reacting so quickly and clarifying (ironically, I got the year wrong in my previous comment - I have now changed it to 2012).