£80000 for civil rape conviction
Discussion
Sa Calobra said:
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.
otolith said:
The two things are separate. A criminal case is a crime against society which it must prove beyond reasonable doubt. A civil case is a dispute with the other person which you must prove beyond the balance of probabilities. If you win, you get compensated. *You* are making a special case of it because it is rape - or do you not believe in the civil justice system at all?
How are they seperate? there is no civil crime of rape. so how can a civil court find him "guilty" of rape and hence award damages?It is a criminal case and should be tried criminally which it was. Its a dangerous precedent. As i mentioned with the self defence case in my reply - the same basic principle.
Technically she suffered harm from "consensual" sex as far as the law is concerned. Could you imagine if every woman who had drunken sex and regretted it sued for emotional damage? And got a shrink to say she was depressed as evidence of actual "harm" caused? or how about when relationships go bad and people split, a partner sues the cheater for emotional distress etc??
Where do you draw the line? people who hate speeders in their village sue drivers for the "anguish and stress" caused and get compo?
The whole civil court and compensation system is even more broken than the criminal justice system but thats another debate....
So - if somebody crashes into your car, and the police don't prosecute or they do but they are found not guilty of dangerous driving - you shouldn't get any insurance payout from them, no?
Or is it just when you beat someone up or rape them that you don't want them to be able to sue you?
Or is it just when you beat someone up or rape them that you don't want them to be able to sue you?
Psycho Warren said:
Technically she suffered harm from "consensual" sex as far as the law is concerned. Could you imagine if every woman who had drunken sex and regretted it sued for emotional damage? And got a shrink to say she was depressed as evidence of actual "harm" caused? or how about when relationships go bad and people split, a partner sues the cheater for emotional distress etc??
She was not on trial. The court did not rule that the sex was not consensual, it ruled that it could not prove beyond all reasonable doubt that it was not. You aren't one of those people who thinks that not guilty in a rape trial proves that the woman was lying, are you?otolith said:
So - if somebody crashes into your car, and the police don't prosecute or they do but they are found not guilty of dangerous driving - you shouldn't get any insurance payout from them, no?
Or is it just when you beat someone up or rape them that you don't want them to be able to sue you?
Depends if the crash was originally given permission to do so.Or is it just when you beat someone up or rape them that you don't want them to be able to sue you?
otolith said:
So - if somebody crashes into your car, and the police don't prosecute or they do but they are found not guilty of dangerous driving - you shouldn't get any insurance payout from them, no?
Or is it just when you beat someone up or rape them that you don't want them to be able to sue you?
If someone crashes into your car, it will be plain to see to anyone with functioning eyesight that actual damage has occurred, and how much. The same can rarely be said in the case of he-said, she-said rape allegations such as the one we're discussing here. If the opposite were true, we probably wouldn't be discussing it to begin with!Or is it just when you beat someone up or rape them that you don't want them to be able to sue you?
markjmd said:
otolith said:
So - if somebody crashes into your car, and the police don't prosecute or they do but they are found not guilty of dangerous driving - you shouldn't get any insurance payout from them, no?
Or is it just when you beat someone up or rape them that you don't want them to be able to sue you?
If someone crashes into your car, it will be plain to see to anyone with functioning eyesight that actual damage has occurred, and how much. The same can rarely be said in the case of he-said, she-said rape allegations such as the one we're discussing here. If the opposite were true, we probably wouldn't be discussing it to begin with!Or is it just when you beat someone up or rape them that you don't want them to be able to sue you?
otolith said:
She was not on trial. The court did not rule that the sex was not consensual, it ruled that it could not prove beyond all reasonable doubt that it was not. You aren't one of those people who thinks that not guilty in a rape trial proves that the woman was lying, are you?
Are you one of those people who thinks it would benefit society as a whole if every verdict handed down by our courts could be second-guessed and challenged in civil court if we disagreed with it, and the entire justice system thus effectively be bypassed? markjmd said:
Are you one of those people who thinks it would benefit society as a whole if every verdict handed down by our courts could be second-guessed and challenged in civil court if we disagreed with it, and the entire justice system thus effectively be bypassed?
Are you one of those people who bypasses a question by asking another?The civil court does not 'second-guess' the crown court's decision. The civil court case does not 'bypass'. the entire (entire?) justice system. The civil courts are part of the justice system. If this victim was unable to go to a civil court, then a criminal court would be able to bypass that part of the justice system.
markjmd said:
Are you one of those people who thinks it would benefit society as a whole if every verdict handed down by our courts could be second-guessed and challenged in civil court if we disagreed with it, and the entire justice system thus effectively be bypassed?
Exactly. The civil court system is for "civil" not "criminal" matters. Rape is a criminal matter.otolith said:
it ruled that it could not prove beyond all reasonable doubt that it was not. You aren't one of those people who thinks that not guilty in a rape trial proves that the woman was lying, are you?
IN the eyes of the law the suspected rapist has not been found guilty and therefore by definition the woman lied or was confused or mistaken.Of course a proportion of rapists get off so no i dont believe all women in such cases are lying.
However it doesnt matter what i think or what public opinion thinks.
Psycho Warren said:
IN the eyes of the law the suspected rapist has not been found guilty and therefore by definition the woman lied or was confused or mistaken.
.
No matter how many times you are told you seem unable or unwilling to understand. In the eyes of the law they were not convicted which meant the jury were not sure so we don't punish them, we do that to reduce the chance of the innocent being convicted. However in terms of whether she was raped all that matters is - if the man had sex with a woman who didn't consent - he raped her. What the jury think doesn't matter, what the judge thinks doesn't matter it's a matter of fact. .
If a civil court is convinced ON a BALANCE OF PROBABILITIES (It's more likely she was than she wasn't) that she was raped, then she can get compensation from the rapist. This still doesn't change what happened and whether he is in fact a rapist.
markjmd said:
otolith said:
So - if somebody crashes into your car, and the police don't prosecute or they do but they are found not guilty of dangerous driving - you shouldn't get any insurance payout from them, no?
Or is it just when you beat someone up or rape them that you don't want them to be able to sue you?
If someone crashes into your car, it will be plain to see to anyone with functioning eyesight that actual damage has occurred, and how much. The same can rarely be said in the case of he-said, she-said rape allegations such as the one we're discussing here. If the opposite were true, we probably wouldn't be discussing it to begin with!Or is it just when you beat someone up or rape them that you don't want them to be able to sue you?
One person says another wronged them. The state gives one of them the benefit of the doubt in the criminal case, because that’s how it works. The civil court decides which of them it thinks is telling the truth on an equal footing and decides accordingly. If it finds in favour of the plaintiff, the loser doesn’t get a criminal record, doesn’t go to prison, doesn’t get fined, but they do have to make reparations to the person the court has decided it thinks they wronged. Whether they sold a faulty appliance, told a libellous untruth, damaged someone’s property or unlawfully physically or psychologically harmed them.
otolith said:
markjmd said:
otolith said:
So - if somebody crashes into your car, and the police don't prosecute or they do but they are found not guilty of dangerous driving - you shouldn't get any insurance payout from them, no?
Or is it just when you beat someone up or rape them that you don't want them to be able to sue you?
If someone crashes into your car, it will be plain to see to anyone with functioning eyesight that actual damage has occurred, and how much. The same can rarely be said in the case of he-said, she-said rape allegations such as the one we're discussing here. If the opposite were true, we probably wouldn't be discussing it to begin with!Or is it just when you beat someone up or rape them that you don't want them to be able to sue you?
One person says another wronged them. The state gives one of them the benefit of the doubt in the criminal case, because that’s how it works. The civil court decides which of them it thinks is telling the truth on an equal footing and decides accordingly. If it finds in favour of the plaintiff, the loser doesn’t get a criminal record, doesn’t go to prison, doesn’t get fined, but they do have to make reparations to the person the court has decided it thinks they wronged. Whether they sold a faulty appliance, told a libellous untruth, damaged someone’s property or unlawfully physically or psychologically harmed them.
singlecoil said:
I think everybody understands the legal basis for what happens. They (and I) just don't agree that it should have happened that way. I find it very worrying that a person can put on a good performance in court and be awarded £80,000 of the other person's money. What we don't know, and what the judge doesn't know, was whether the sex was consensual. Maybe it wasn't, and maybe it was. Only two people were there and each says the other is lying.
How is that different to any number of other sorts of civil cases?otolith said:
singlecoil said:
I think everybody understands the legal basis for what happens. They (and I) just don't agree that it should have happened that way. I find it very worrying that a person can put on a good performance in court and be awarded £80,000 of the other person's money. What we don't know, and what the judge doesn't know, was whether the sex was consensual. Maybe it wasn't, and maybe it was. Only two people were there and each says the other is lying.
How is that different to any number of other sorts of civil cases?singlecoil said:
Supporting evidence for one thing. Contracts, paper trails, witnesses, the list goes on.
“He drove into the back of me”“She reversed into me”
The court will examine the evidence. I would imagine that the original case required a little more supporting evidence than just a statement from her that he did it.
otolith said:
singlecoil said:
Supporting evidence for one thing. Contracts, paper trails, witnesses, the list goes on.
“He drove into the back of me”“She reversed into me”
The court will examine the evidence. I would imagine that the original case required a little more supporting evidence than just a statement from her that he did it.
singlecoil said:
otolith said:
singlecoil said:
Supporting evidence for one thing. Contracts, paper trails, witnesses, the list goes on.
“He drove into the back of me”“She reversed into me”
The court will examine the evidence. I would imagine that the original case required a little more supporting evidence than just a statement from her that he did it.
I do understand the principles by which the prosecutor in Scotland brings a case - link here in the unlikely event that you wish to educate yourself;
http://www.copfs.gov.uk/images/Documents/Prosecuti...
I also know that in this case the civil court heard 7 days of evidence and produced an 84 page ruling.
So, yes, I would imagine that the evidence amounted to rather more than an unsubstantiated accusation.
Graveworm said:
However in terms of whether she was raped all that matters is - if the man had sex with a woman who didn't consent - he raped her.
I think you are missing the point. He was NOT found guilty. Therefore he did NOT rape her and by definition the sex was consensual in the eyes of the criminal court. Having doubts about someones innocence - but not being able to prove it -ie the meaning of not proven doesnt mean he is partially guilty.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff