Hairy Cornflake (DLT) NOT GUILTY
Discussion
supertouring said:
Can he sure the accusers?
Different standard of proof in a civil rather than criminal court. The outcome would be far from guaranteed and the potential downside (losing) would outweigh the potential upside (being awarded substantial damages against someone with no money or assets)
Pothole said:
supertouring said:
Can he sure the accusers?
Sue he can...erm...Breadvan72 said:
Pothole said:
supertouring said:
Can he sure the accusers?
Sue he can...erm...Breadvan72 said:
You can't sue someone for something said in Court (subject to some very narrow exceptions, not likely to apply here). You can only sue someone for malicious prosecution if you can prove malice, which is very hard to do.
But he’s been found not guilty so shouldn’t his accusers, their families, the investigating police officers, CPS, both side’s barristers, the judge, clerk of the court and the court recorder all be subject to summary justice resulting in their being transported to the colonies?It’s a Dave Lee Travisty of justice otherwise.
turbobloke said:
Breadvan72 said:
Pothole said:
supertouring said:
Can he sure the accusers?
Sue he can...erm...supertouring said:
Can he sure the accusers?
Only if he has been libelled....... and you can't be libelled,
- in parliament, or
- by someone under oath in a court of law.
In the same way, his accusers might try to sue him for damages on the basis their civil claim is easier to prove on "balance of probabilities" than the criminal prosecution which needed "beyond reasonable doubt". However, their claims would be time-barred unless the Court gave special permission for claims to be brought out of time.
None of this is very likely.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff