On 20 April 2012 Chedwyn Evans, a 23 year old professional footballer, was convicted of rape at Caernarfon Crown Court. He is currently serving a 5 year prison sentence.
Chedwyn Evans maintains his absolute innocence and his family, friends and many who know the true facts of the case believe that his conviction was a gross miscarriage of justice.
We believe that due to Ched’s profession, the reporting of the facts by much of the media leading up to the trial, during the trial itself and subsequent to his conviction was highly sensationalised and gave a very negative and biased impression of what had transpired.
This website endeavours to re-dress that balance by presenting the evidence to the public in a balanced and accurate way in order that people can assess the salient facts of this case and make their own judgement as to whether the Jury’s decision in this case was a just one.
From the outset we would like to state that this website in no way seeks to undermine the seriousness of rape or trivialise the suffering that rape victims suffer. We recognise that rape is a terrible crime which, if committed, ought to carry a severe sentence. This website is not about the severity of the sentence, we are stating that Ched did not commit the crime of rape at all. Furthermore, we recognise and acknowledge that in rape cases the anonymity of the victim is a fundamental legal principle that should be upheld and respected.
When reading this website these fundamental points should be kept in mind:
It should be noted that the complainant who was alleged to have been raped in this case stated when interviewed by the police and sunsequently maintained in Court that she could not remember anything at all, other than a very brief period in a take-away.
She remembers being in the night club and waking up the next morning in the Premier Inn, a time span that specifically covers the entire sexual activity which led to Ched being convicted of rape and his co-accused Clayton McDonald acquitted.
The only evidence of what sexual activity occurred came from the accounts of his co-accused Clayton McDonald who also had sex with the complainant and was found not guilty of rape, Ched, and the night porter who was listening outside the room.
As this case revolves around the issue of intoxication and consent, it should be noted that it is established in the case of R V Bree that drunken consent to sexual intercourse is nevertheless consent in the eyes of the law. This does not mean that if a person is unconscious through drink or drugs it is acceptable to have sex with that person but rather, where an intoxicated person is functioning and able to make conscious decisions at the time of intercourse and then subsequently regrets that decision and decides to make a complaint of rape, her self-inflicted intoxication ought not to be considered as relevant to the issue of consent.
The police arrested both Ched and Clayton at the station, they acknowledged that the only evidence that sexual activity had taken place was their admission. There was no complaint of rape, no forensic evidence, no injury and no complaint.
Finally it should be noted that the burden of proof in criminal law lies with the Prosecution and that in order to gain a conviction the Prosecution must prove ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ that a crime was committed i.e. the Jury has to be sure an offence has taken place. Essentially, this means that following the submissions of the Prosecution if there remains any doubt that a crime has been committed the accused must be acquitted. It is not for the accused to prove his innocence.
With the above in mind please read the following key facts and make up your own mind. If you are a football fan, please put aside your affiliations and assess this case on its own merits.