Daniel Taylor on Gordon Taylor and Steve Bruce

[Paul6754]

I think their argument is from a legal perspective. I believe the case is that unless there is new evidence then the only appeal is that there was some problem with the legal process (i.e. judge was biased/jury was bribed) and as a rule these appeals will not cause an over-ruling of the verdict. In other words, if a judge and jury heard the evidence and came to a decision with all the evidence at hand then there is no case for an appeal to overturn the decision.

 

As I say, I am no legal expert only and this conversation went on for an hour, speckled with examples of other cases (e.g. Blah vs Blah in 1986) and the view was that there is no appeal case to answer.

 

I repeat, I may be wrong and they may be wrong but the point remains that just as you don't expect a cricket fan to be the best judge of football, you can't expect someone with no legal knowledge (e.g. Steve Bruce) to be the best judge of a legal process. He can have a view, yes of course, but for him to use these words "when you look at the case in detail, and I don’t think most people have really... when you do look at the case and look at the evidence then certainly Ched has got a case" is Steve Bruce effectively saying he knows about the legal issues of the case which is not true. He knows as much as the next layperson - he wasn't at the trial, he hasn't studied the law - yet, he's dressing his words up as though he does.

 

As far as I can tell Steve Bruce has questioned the conviction and said CE should be given the chance to play football again) which is what many people have said, quote "I might be upsetting people but there is a question of the rape and how he's been convicted by a jury,"

 

On the governments website on appealing a conviction it says "You can normally only appeal if.....", note the word "normally", it leaves the door wide open. Perhaps CE's new legal team considers there's something abnormal in the conviction or they've uncovered new evidence etc. The new lawyers must consider there are grounds for a second appeal and that it will be successful.

 

https://www.gov.uk/appeal-against-sentence-conviction/crown-court-verdict

[JOHNNYAITCH]

As far as I can tell Steve Bruce has questioned the conviction and said CE should be given the chance to play football again) which is what many people have said, quote "I might be upsetting people but there is a question of the rape and how he's been convicted by a jury,"

 

But that's the point..on what legal basis is he questioning the conviction..saying I don't think he's guilty is irrelevant..the review is about the process and whether there is NEW evidence..it's not a retrial. It would be far better if he kept his g0b shut and let the process run its course.

 

As for whether he should be able to play football again, no problem with him commenting on that....IMO he should be allowed to play again if a club wants him

 

 

Normally is used extensively in legal terms..it's rarely if ever a case of applying hard and fast rules to allow for unknowns to come into play and for the individual circumstances of a case to be considered. This is not an appeal.

 

If there is new evidence etc the process wil take that on board and deal with it..but it's irrelevant that anyone thinks the evidence isn't enough or doesn't prove guilt to the process that's going on at the moment..the process going on is about wheher due process was followed or is there new evidence etc.

 

It's a feature of our system that if a different jury had sat they may have come to a different verdict but that's no reason to overturn the conviction or order a retrial...and the review board is not doing that.

 

The new lawyers must consider there are grounds for a second appeal and that it will be successful.

 

Or they think it's worth a shot, lawyers are always launching appeals that get thrown out almost as soon as the process has started. And this isn't an appeal, it's a review of how the process was applied by The Criminal Cases Review Commission ..as far as I know they have not given the reason why.

[Paul6754]

But that's the point..on what legal basis is he questioning the conviction..saying I don't think he's guilty is irrelevant..the review is about the process and whether there is NEW evidence..it's not a retrial. It would be far better if he kept his g0b shut and let the process run its course.

 

Ask the lawyers on what basis they consider there's ground for an appeal.

 

Normally is used extensively in legal terms..it's rarely if ever a case of applying hard and fast rules to allow for unknowns to come into play and for the individual circumstances of a case to be considered. This is not an appeal.

 

If there is new evidence etc the process wil take that on board and deal with it..but it's irrelevant that anyone thinks the evidence isn't enough or doesn't prove guilt to the process that's going on at the moment..the process going on is about wheher due process was followed or is there new evidence etc.

 

It's a feature of our system that if a different jury had sat they may have come to a different verdict but that's no reason to overturn the conviction or order a retrial...and the review board is not doing that.

 

Or they think it's worth a shot, lawyers are always launching appeals that get thrown out almost as soon as the process has started. And this isn't an appeal, it's a review of how the process was applied by The Criminal Cases Review Commission ..as far as I know they have not given the reason why.

 

Didn't realise you're an expert on how the word "normally" is used in a legal paradigm. They must think it's worth a shot. Based on the inconsistencies, if I was in the same situation I would want to appeal it.

[bookworm]

taylor v taylor, a right pair of priques together

[JOHNNYAITCH]

Ask the lawyers on what basis they consider there's ground for an appeal.

 

You ask them as you think there are grounds..I have no idea if there are or there are not as I'm no legal expert. This is not an appeal

 

Didn't realise you're an expert on how the word "normally" is used in a legal paradigm.

 

I claim no such expertise..it's a simple fact that normally is used extensively in the legal world..same for usually

 

They must think it's worth a shot.

 

Obviously they do or they would not appeal, question is why they think it's worth a shot

 

Based on the inconsistencies, if I was in the same situation I would want to appeal it.

 

Me too probably..what would I have to lose by at least trying?

 

We've not been told that this review is happening because of anything his lawyers have said or done..we've not been given any reason as far as I can see

 

We'll see what the review decides..let due process run its course and people in the public eye should keep schtum

[JOHNNYAITCH]

For clarity "But that's the point..on what legal basis is he questioning the conviction" etc was a reference to Steve Bruce not Ched Evans nor his legal team

[Paul6754]

Ched Evans claims fresh evidence available. It is claimed these details "strengthen" his case.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-31026229

[Robbie Earle's Perm]

Ched Evans claims fresh evidence available. It is claimed these details "strengthen" his case.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-31026229

 

Wonder why this evidence has taken 3 years or more to come to light. For me unless it's her changing her statement or there is video evidence from the room to suggest otherwise I can't see what will help him overcome his guilty verdict?