The Trial
When the trial started in Caernarfon, the main thrust of the Prosecution’s case was that the complainant was so intoxicated that she would have been unable to consent and that spotting her vulnerability the two accused targeted her in a predatory fashion.
When interviewed by the Police following his arrest, Ched had stated that, as a well known footballer, if he wanted to have sex with a girl, there were plenty of opportunities for him to do so. This comment was not a boastful claim but merely an observation on the society we live in. Anyone who knows Ched would confirm that he is neither arrogant nor boastful.
Of course, the Police knew exactly how these comments made under the extreme pressure of questioning at a Police station will play out in Court many months later in front of a Jury. Composed from a society that is constantly bombarded with anti-footballer media articles relating to the perceived arrogance and bad behaviour of some – they were not disappointed – the prosecution skilfully presented Ched’s words to the Jury in such a way as to make him look arrogant and conceited. And to complete the circle, the media reported Ched’s perceived arrogance to the society from which further Juries will be drawn.
The Prosecution produced CCTV of the complainant walking to and from the kebab shop. She was certainly swaying and unsteady on her feet. Further CCTV of the complainant turning her ankle and stumbling over in the kebab shop was put before the Jury. Finally, CCTV footage of the complainant entering the foyer of the Premier Inn and walking across the reception area was produced.
To counter this argument the Defence pointed out that within the CCTV footage there were numerous incidents that indicated that the complainant was capable of rational thought and decision making. Bearing in mind that the complainant’s intoxication was diminishing as time passed, it is notable that in the hour leading up to the incident in the hotel room, the CCTV footage showed the complainant was capable of:
Squatting down and rummaging through her handbag and getting back up in high heels;
Walking unaided;
Holding a conversation with other people;
Spurning the advances of another male;
Helping herself to food from other people in the kebab shop;
Ordering food;
Paying with the correct coinage;
Squatting in a doorway to urinate;
Reacting to a car flashing its lights; and
Remembering that she had left a pizza outside the Premier Inn and going back to retrieve it.
Further evidence showed that she was capable of:
Composing a coherent text message, correctly spelt and capitalized. (text sent to her friend at 02:54)
Responding to requests – she was asked by the taxi driver to get out of the back seat and get in the front because she was eating a pizza.
Requesting Clayton not to leave her – “you are not going to leave me are you”.
The agreed toxicology report evidenced the following:
blood alcohol levels of approximately 203mg of alcohol/100ml of blood or approximately 2.5 times the drink drive limit;
traces of cocaine;
traces of cannabis; and
no evidence of the complainant having been spiked.
Under cross examination the complainant claimed she was not a regular user of drugs and had taken the cocaine found in her system more than 1 week before the incident but could not remember exactly when, where or how she had procurred it. She was adamant that she did not and would not have taken cocaine in the night club on the night in question. Expert evidence proved that the complainant was lying on oath on the stand about her cocaine consumption. The expert evidence suggested that either she was a very heavy user of cocaine or that she had taken the cocaine only 3-5 days before the incident. Either way, what she said on the stand did not correspond with the expert analysis.
Exactly why she lied about her cocaine use is not clear but the important point to note here is that there was no evidence to suggest that her intoxication levels were increased either through drugs or alcohol on the night in question.
Notwithstanding the above, in his summing up to the Jury the Judge introduced the theory that the complainant’s level of intoxication could have been increased by the consumption of more alcohol and/or drugs into her system after she had lost her memory. There was absolutely no evidence to support this theory.
At Caernarvon Crown Court the evidence was presented to the Jury over 8 days. The sitting Jury had been on Jury duty for 3 weeks. On Friday 20th April the Jury members left the Court to deliberate. After 4 hours, the Jury sent a message to the Judge saying that they could not come to a unanimous decision on both counts. The Judge chose not to exercise his discretion to give the Jury the option to return a majority verdict and sent them back out to further deliberate the case. It was clear that should the Jury not reach a unanimous decision by the end of that Friday session they would have to come back to the Court the following Monday and start what was for some a fourth week of service.
Approximately 50 minutes later the Jury returned two unanimous decisions - finding Clayton McDonald innocent and Ched Evans guilty. Clayton McDonald was acquitted. Ched Evans was sentenced to 5 years imprisonment.
After the jury reached its verdict, the Judge immediately went on to sentence Ched Evans. During the course of his sentencing comments, it was apparent that he had not accounted for the eventual verdicts being one of guilty and one of not guilty.
One could conclude that if the jury found that the complainant had consensual sex with Clayton McDonald then the sex that occurred with Ched would be consensual as well as the issue was over her ability to consent and she of course could remember no sexual activity at all.
After Ched was sentenced, Philpott the prosecuting barrister went over to Ched's parents and said 'I am so sorry'.
Ched vehemently maintains his innocence.
