by Yorkyblue » Sat Jan 10, 2015 9:14 am
by squiggle » Sat Jan 10, 2015 9:18 am
by Yorkyblue » Sat Jan 10, 2015 9:20 am
by RowdyRoddyPoppins » Sat Jan 10, 2015 9:24 am
Yorkyblue wrote:Too drunk to remember despite not drinking much.
by Yorkyblue » Sat Jan 10, 2015 9:26 am
by Santi » Sat Jan 10, 2015 3:32 pm
by Welsh Gunner » Sat Jan 10, 2015 4:08 pm
Mesüt wrote:And what if he was wasted as well? I know he wasn't but hypothetically speaking, then would it just be two drunk people having sex? She could still argue the same thing and I doubt him being drunk would get him off.
by Massa » Sat Jan 10, 2015 4:31 pm
by Trina » Sat Jan 10, 2015 6:34 pm
squiggle wrote:But the ruling was that she didn't consent, wasn't it? https://www.crimeline.info/case/r-v-ched-evans-chedwyn-evans
You can argue about how we can know that, but the verdict wasn't that she was too drunk to mean it.
by AAIRE99 » Sat Jan 10, 2015 10:15 pm
Trina wrote:squiggle wrote:But the ruling was that she didn't consent, wasn't it? https://www.crimeline.info/case/r-v-ched-evans-chedwyn-evans
You can argue about how we can know that, but the verdict wasn't that she was too drunk to mean it.
First time I have read all this.
Why did ched go to the hotel room knowing McDonald was there with a female?
And if it was ok for McDonald to sleep with her, why not ched? Seen as she has no memory of it. How come McDonald got nothing and ched was sent down?
by S&W the no1Fan » Sat Jan 10, 2015 10:32 pm
AAIRE99 wrote:Trina wrote:squiggle wrote:But the ruling was that she didn't consent, wasn't it? https://www.crimeline.info/case/r-v-ched-evans-chedwyn-evans
You can argue about how we can know that, but the verdict wasn't that she was too drunk to mean it.
First time I have read all this.
Why did ched go to the hotel room knowing McDonald was there with a female?
And if it was ok for McDonald to sleep with her, why not ched? Seen as she has no memory of it. How come McDonald got nothing and ched was sent down?
The weirdest thing was Evans left out the fire exit for me. Ye he shouldnt have went to the room at all what was he thinking. :X
by Trina » Sat Jan 10, 2015 11:22 pm
by UFGN » Sun Jan 11, 2015 12:36 am
by Royal Gooner » Sun Jan 11, 2015 9:05 am
by S&W the no1Fan » Sun Jan 11, 2015 12:16 pm
Royal Gooner wrote:The criminal defence of intoxication is a complicated one. If you intentionally got drunk, then the defence doesn't work. if your drink was spiked, then it does but only if the crime is requires specific intent. If it requires basic intent, the defence doesn't work either.