£80000 for civil rape conviction
Discussion
singlecoil said:
I will make my point even more obvious- it's not about which activity is the most risky, it's about the severity of the risk. In a bad accident you might lose a limb or your mobility, maybe even your life. Being falsely accused of rape will certainly lead to loss of reputation and may well lead to loss of family, job and liberty
It may do, it may not. In the same way as rape ruins some women's lives, but others manage to move on and live normal lives. I had an uncle falsely accused many years ago, not out of maliciousness but out of mistaken identity. He was in the frame for about a week, after the victim picked him out in an ID parade. Fortunately, the actual rapist struck again at a time when my uncle had a rock solid alibi, and the 2nd victim gave a description matching my uncle. He was caught soon after, and did look very similar to my uncle.
Now that never ruined his life. Not a bit of it. It all blew over within weeks.
An false accusation of fraud or embezzlement, child cruelty, and many other crimes can ruin someone's life. But those people are routinely named. Even alleged murderers are named. I don't think being accused of murder is something that would do you much good on your c.v.
PorkInsider said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Derek Smith said:
What's the problem? She made a claim for damages and won. Isn't that what the civil courts are for?
Why do you hope he wins, especially when he wasn't cleared of rape as you suggest.? The criminal court found the case 'not proved'.
Good on her. She's got nothing out of this evidently, other than a sense of justice.
+1Why do you hope he wins, especially when he wasn't cleared of rape as you suggest.? The criminal court found the case 'not proved'.
Good on her. She's got nothing out of this evidently, other than a sense of justice.
Any chance this can work the other way round? Found guilty of a crime against someone in a criminal court, civil court finds you not guilty and your reputation is publicly restored with full honours and a refund of the original fine plus interest?
XCP said:
ninjag said:
I don't like the whole "Not Proven" thing because it introduces speculation and bias. As far as I'm concerned the law is about evidence and the burden of proof; not about a Sheriff/Judge's personal opinion on someone's guilt. What if the Judge (male/female) is racist, sectarian bigot (more common in Scotland), a misandrist or a misogynist? If there's a little bit of unreliable and questionable evidence available to abuse then it allows them to exercise their prejudices on potentially innocent people.
I "think" you are guilty but I can't proof it but hey, I can still slap a big label on you so everyone knows how I feel. Don't worry, it won't screw up your life because the public are so understanding and will never jump to conclusions. And to think that Scotland, well Sturgeon, keeps banging on about being such a progressive country.
Whilst no expert on Scottish law, I think it is a decision for the jury to make rather than the judge.I "think" you are guilty but I can't proof it but hey, I can still slap a big label on you so everyone knows how I feel. Don't worry, it won't screw up your life because the public are so understanding and will never jump to conclusions. And to think that Scotland, well Sturgeon, keeps banging on about being such a progressive country.
markjmd said:
Serious question, does the alleged perpetrator in this case have any options for appeal against the civil conviction?
Yes, but you need a proper legal reason. Unsubmitted evidence, additional evidence, further evidence casting doubt on a witness, an error in procedure etc. You can't just appeal because the verdict didn't go your way. What happened to innocent until proven guilty???
By definition he hasn't been found guilty.
Something like this could be used as a dangerous lead up to a precedent meaning the innocent regularly get found "guilty" of the same crime in civil court.
Should only be allowed when convicted IMO.
What next, you defend yourself in a fight or whatever and are found not guilty of assault or ABH etc, but because the person suffered injuries, the s
t sues you in civil court for injury compensation and wins.....
Its a step too far IMO.
By definition he hasn't been found guilty.
Something like this could be used as a dangerous lead up to a precedent meaning the innocent regularly get found "guilty" of the same crime in civil court.
Should only be allowed when convicted IMO.
What next, you defend yourself in a fight or whatever and are found not guilty of assault or ABH etc, but because the person suffered injuries, the s
t sues you in civil court for injury compensation and wins.....Its a step too far IMO.
Psycho Warren said:
What happened to innocent until proven guilty???
By definition he hasn't been found guilty.
Something like this could be used as a dangerous lead up to a precedent meaning the innocent regularly get found "guilty" of the same crime in civil court.
Should only be allowed when convicted IMO.
What next, you defend yourself in a fight or whatever and are found not guilty of assault or ABH etc, but because the person suffered injuries, the st sues you in civil court for injury compensation and wins.....
Its a step too far IMO.
Should you only be able to sue someone if the CPS has decided to bother prosecuting and they have been found guilty? By definition he hasn't been found guilty.
Something like this could be used as a dangerous lead up to a precedent meaning the innocent regularly get found "guilty" of the same crime in civil court.
Should only be allowed when convicted IMO.
What next, you defend yourself in a fight or whatever and are found not guilty of assault or ABH etc, but because the person suffered injuries, the s
t sues you in civil court for injury compensation and wins.....Its a step too far IMO.
Psycho Warren said:
What happened to innocent until proven guilty???
By definition he hasn't been found guilty.
.
Never existed in the terms you think it did. Anyway in this case he was proved culpable. By definition he hasn't been found guilty.
.
If you saw one of your employees stealing and they were acquitted would you accept they were innocent?
By your definition Jack the Ripper is innocent.
otolith said:
Should you only be able to sue someone if the CPS has decided to bother prosecuting and they have been found guilty?
For criminal cases yes. Its a dangerous prescedant IMO. In this case they are arguing she had suffered harm and that harm is what won compensation - technically the compensation wasnt strictly for rape.
Where does it end?
A simple self defence case, you are found not guilty. The accuser then sues you for the harm he suffered due to the injuries caused when you defended yourself. Ludicrous to say criminally what you did was legal yet punishing you financially for the same "offence"
People are getting all out of shape in this case because its a rape case when in fact its not the crime that was relevant but the entire principal of the civil case in the first place.
Graveworm said:
Never existed in the terms you think it did. Anyway in this case he was proved culpable.
If you saw one of your employees stealing and they were acquitted would you accept they were innocent?
By your definition Jack the Ripper is innocent.
proved culpable? how? the case was not proven. No additional criminal charges filed as far as im aware.If you saw one of your employees stealing and they were acquitted would you accept they were innocent?
By your definition Jack the Ripper is innocent.
Technically jimmy saville is innocent. Very few people believe he is actually innocent as he was never tried, but it matters not what people believe or think until a criminal court agrees with them.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
As blokes, what do we worry about more? Being falsely accused of rape, or having one of the women in your life, wife, sister, daughter, raped?
I know which concerns me. I never give a moments to false rape, and neither do my 2 sons in their 20s. I do worry about my wife being out and about, I don't have daughters or sisters.
Since rape in marriage became illegal, how many unreported genuine rapes do you think there are. I'd say hundreds every day, probably thousands. Women who don't even think they've been raped, because that's just the way their life is.
I also wonder, for every false rape report, how many genuine rapes never get the green light to proceed from the CPS. Lots I would think.
Finally, how many false rape allegations are their compare the men being raped by other men. Do any of those of you who worry about false rape also worry about being raped?
I'm sure it's very distressing for any man who finds himself in the situation of being falsely accused, but I really don't think it's the big problem it's painted out to be on PH.
I'm with you. Whilst I don't spend too much of my time worrying about the latter, it's definitely of far more concern to me than the former.I know which concerns me. I never give a moments to false rape, and neither do my 2 sons in their 20s. I do worry about my wife being out and about, I don't have daughters or sisters.
Since rape in marriage became illegal, how many unreported genuine rapes do you think there are. I'd say hundreds every day, probably thousands. Women who don't even think they've been raped, because that's just the way their life is.
I also wonder, for every false rape report, how many genuine rapes never get the green light to proceed from the CPS. Lots I would think.
Finally, how many false rape allegations are their compare the men being raped by other men. Do any of those of you who worry about false rape also worry about being raped?
I'm sure it's very distressing for any man who finds himself in the situation of being falsely accused, but I really don't think it's the big problem it's painted out to be on PH.
Psycho Warren said:
otolith said:
Should you only be able to sue someone if the CPS has decided to bother prosecuting and they have been found guilty?
For criminal cases yes. Its a dangerous prescedant IMO. In this case they are arguing she had suffered harm and that harm is what won compensation - technically the compensation wasnt strictly for rape.
Where does it end?
A simple self defence case, you are found not guilty. The accuser then sues you for the harm he suffered due to the injuries caused when you defended yourself. Ludicrous to say criminally what you did was legal yet punishing you financially for the same "offence"
People are getting all out of shape in this case because its a rape case when in fact its not the crime that was relevant but the entire principal of the civil case in the first place.
poo at Paul's said:
"during the evening she drank four cans of cider, a bottle of rose wine, a bottle of champagne and three glasses of sparkling wine mixed with vodka"
That's a serious amount of booze for anyone, never mind an 18 year old. So on the one hand court clearly believed she was not competent to consent....? And yet able to remember the details to be seen as "cogent, compelling and persuasive".
Unsavoury episode indeed. No mention of the amount of booze he had consumed. If he was similarly ratarsed, could that be used in mitigation of straightforward defence? Was it used in such a way at the criminal trial?
As the father of a daughter, I shudder at the thought of her drinking so much in one sitting so to speak. I'd be paralytic after the cider and bottle of rose!
Sad case all round.
Where does it specify what she drank?That's a serious amount of booze for anyone, never mind an 18 year old. So on the one hand court clearly believed she was not competent to consent....? And yet able to remember the details to be seen as "cogent, compelling and persuasive".
Unsavoury episode indeed. No mention of the amount of booze he had consumed. If he was similarly ratarsed, could that be used in mitigation of straightforward defence? Was it used in such a way at the criminal trial?
As the father of a daughter, I shudder at the thought of her drinking so much in one sitting so to speak. I'd be paralytic after the cider and bottle of rose!
Sad case all round.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff