Not guilty - but pay up!

[Laird Lugton]

As child in Scotland I remember my mother telling me a good way of looking at a "not proven" verdict as meaning we know you did it but can't prove it. If the jury/judge thought you were innocent then a not guilty verdict would have been passed.

 

From wikipedia:

"Both in the "solemn" and the "summary" acquittals, not proven is interpreted as indicating that the jury or judge, respectively, is not convinced of the innocence of the accused; in fact, they may be morally convinced that the accused is guilty, but do not find the proofs sufficient for a conviction. One reason for this is the rule that in such cases the evidence for the prosecution must be corroborated in order to permit a conviction." (my bold)

I don't think English Law has the "not proven" verdict.

4 hours ago, Lloyd90 said:

 

 A man who was cleared of an accusation of rape,  on the verdict of “case not proven” has been ordered by a lesser Scottish Sheriff court to pay the alleged victim £80,000.

Apparently despite not being proven in court, the Scottish sheriff has decided that he did do it - and therefore he has to pay up. 

Surely a lesser court can’t give a judgement that is in conflict with a higher court?! 

 

The lesser court is not in conflict as the accused was not given a verdict of "not guilty".

3 hours ago, Lloyd90 said:

I understand the burden of proof is lower but that’s terrible that you can be found basically not guilty of a crime and then still have to pay money for the crime you haven’t been convicted of. 

Its like the Police trying to do you for speeding but having absolutely no evidence, getting it thrown out and then saying you probably did it so still have to pay the fine. 

But he isn't "not guilty".

[Munzy]

25 minutes ago, Lloyd90 said:

I’m afraid I don’t agree.

On the basis of being innocent until proven guilty then he was found to be not guilty. 

They even express in the news article that by proclaiming in court that they had no grounds to reach a guilty verdict, then he is  innocent. They stated that it is the exact same outcome as a not guilty verdict. 

But if you follow that logic then nobody could ever be sued in a civil court had they not already been judged “guilty” in a criminal court because we are all “innocent until proven guilty”.

The defence for every civil case could be, “My client has never been judged in a criminal court and found guilty, therefore he must be innocent. If he walked into court this morning as an innocent man in the eyes of the law then your civil case has already failed”.

[Laird Lugton]

30 minutes ago, Lloyd90 said:

I’m afraid I don’t agree.

On the basis of being innocent until proven guilty then he was found to be not guilty. 

They even express in the news article that by proclaiming in court that they had no grounds to reach a guilty verdict, then he is  innocent. They stated that it is the exact same outcome as a not guilty verdict. 

No he wasn't, he was found Not proven!

[Munzy]

4 minutes ago, Laird Lugton said:

But he isn't "not guilty".

This is the crux of it as I understand it.

[Lloyd90]

24 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

There is a high acquittal rate in trial by jury cases.

The Sherriff, hearing the civil case, said that the girl had been "cogent, compelling and persuasive". It was her word against the lad and his evidence wasn't very convincing.

I think that justice has been done, based on the information available.

So basically she told the story better than he did? 

[Munzy]

Just now, Lloyd90 said:

So basically she told the story better than he did? 

In the absence of irrefutable forensic evidence or a recording of the event this is exactly what a court case is about, painting a picture, telling a story, seeing which the jury prefers.

[toontastic]

2 minutes ago, Lloyd90 said:

So basically she told the story better than he did? 

But surely the same argument goes for when he was found not proven.

[Laird Lugton]

 

After hearing seven days of, at times, harrowing evidence in June this year, Sheriff Robert Weir QC said on Friday that he agreed with Miss M’s lawyer, Simon di Rollo QC, that the evidence against Coxen was “compelling and persuasive”.

In an 84-page ruling, the sheriff said he found that soon after 2am on Saturday 14 September 2013 “the defender took advantage of the pursuer when she was incapable of giving meaningful consent because of the effects of alcohol, but he continued to do so even after she manifested distress and a measure of physical resistance, and that he raped her”.

[Gordon R]

Lloyd90 - If you wish to look at it that way - yes. However, if you use that line of argument, it could be said that he told the story better than her at the original trial.

 

[toontastic]

1 minute ago, Laird Lugton said:

 

After hearing seven days of, at times, harrowing evidence in June this year, Sheriff Robert Weir QC said on Friday that he agreed with Miss M’s lawyer, Simon di Rollo QC, that the evidence against Coxen was “compelling and persuasive”.

In an 84-page ruling, the sheriff said he found that soon after 2am on Saturday 14 September 2013 “the defender took advantage of the pursuer when she was incapable of giving meaningful consent because of the effects of alcohol, but he continued to do so even after she manifested distress and a measure of physical resistance, and that he raped her”.

That can't possibly be true, because according to some on here all she had to do was turn up say he raped her and the judge said here's 80,000.

[Vince Green]

There have been several cases of young men, Liam Allan comes most quickly to mind, where vital evidence was withheld by the police, apparently deliberately to get a conviction. Others, Isaac Itiary and Oliver Mears were treated very similarly. Another man was cleared after four years in jail after another officer reviewed the case file.

There is a common thread running through these cases. Specialist rape officers on a mission, it appears 

[Laird Lugton]

1 minute ago, toontastic said:

That can't possibly be true, because according to some on here all she had to do was turn up say he raped her and the judge said here's 80,000.

😂 agreed.

With the not proven verdict he should be hanging his head in shame as he is as good as guilty. The burden of proof was not sufficient  for a custodial sentence but was for an £80k fine. He got away with it lightly.

[Lloyd90]

Just now, Gordon R said:

Lloyd90 - If you wish to look at it that way - yes. However, if you use that line of argument, it could be said that he told the story better than her at the original trial.

 

Absolutely, don’t dispute that. 

Its a very awkward position. Unless she admitted on tape that she made it up, or she made a mistake or something, then I can’t see how under any circumstances it could be proven that he didn’t do it 100%. 

Therefore it’s impossible for him to get a verdict of not guilty (unless they could medically prove she was a virgin etc). 

How can it be justice if it’s impossible for him to prove his innocence? 

[Laird Lugton]

Just now, Vince Green said:

There have been several cases of young men, Liam Allan comes most quickly to mind, where vital evidence was withheld by the police, apparently deliberately to get a conviction. Others, Isaac Itiary and Oliver Mears were treated very similarly. Another man was cleared after four years in jail after another officer reviewed the case file.

There is a common thread running through these cases. Specialist rape officers on a mission, it appears 

And the flip side of that is....

Around one in ten rapes or attempted rapes reported to police in England and Wales are brought to trial. Research from 2013 estimated that between one in twenty and one in thirty rape cases end up at trial.

This is far from being a man hating exercise.

[Lloyd90]

2 minutes ago, Laird Lugton said:

😂 agreed.

With the not proven verdict he should be hanging his head in shame as he is as good as guilty. The burden of proof was not sufficient  for a custodial sentence but was for an £80k fine. He got away with it lightly.

How can he prove his innocence? 

It was impossible in this case. 

[Munzy]

1 minute ago, Lloyd90 said:

Absolutely, don’t dispute that. 

Its a very awkward position. Unless she admitted on tape that she made it up, or she made a mistake or something, then I can’t see how under any circumstances it could be proven that he didn’t do it 100%. 

Therefore it’s impossible for him to get a verdict of not guilty (unless they could medically prove she was a virgin etc). 

How can it be justice if it’s impossible for him to prove his innocence? 

He doesn’t need to prove it 100% in a criminal or civil court though!

[Laird Lugton]

2 minutes ago, Lloyd90 said:

 

Therefore it’s impossible for him to get a verdict of not guilty (unless they could medically prove she was a virgin etc). 

 

Not so, in England there is no not proven. You discredit the Scottish legal system if you think some man can't get a not guilty verdict in a rape trial.

[Vince Green]

2 minutes ago, Laird Lugton said:

😂 agreed.

With the not proven verdict he should be hanging his head in shame as he is as good as guilty. The burden of proof was not sufficient  for a custodial sentence but was for an £80k fine. He got away with it lightly.

Just wondered what the £80,000 was for? since as I understand it a sheriff court cannot fine it can only compensate.

[Laird Lugton]

3 minutes ago, Lloyd90 said:

How can he prove his innocence? 

It was impossible in this case. 

Thus, there might be a single plaintiff or witness for the prosecution, which the jury or judge believes is both truthful and trustworthy, but no other witness or circumstances against the accused. By Scottish law, the accused then should be acquitted, but often will be so by the verdict "not proven".^[1]

2 minutes ago, Vince Green said:

Just wondered what the £80,000 was for? since as I understand it a sheriff court cannot fine it can only compensate.

My mistake, it's damages 👍

[Laird Lugton]

18 minutes ago, Lloyd90 said:

How can he prove his innocence? 

It was impossible in this case. 

So after a bit of digging a few facts from Rape Crisis Scotland.

 

In 2016/7 there were 1878 reports of rape or attempted rape, of those, 251 went to prosecution and 98 cases resulted in a conviction. Of the Not Guilty/Not Proven verdicts 153 were not guilty and 26 were not proven.

So in answer to your question the Scottish legal system has shown it is quite capable of enabling the accused to prove their innocence.....

 

Ot to put it another way the jury and judges thought 153 were definitely not guilty but 26 they were pretty certain they'd raped someone but couldn't prove it beyond reasonable doubt.

Edited October 15, 2018 by Laird Lugton

[Lloyd90]

31 minutes ago, Laird Lugton said:

Not so, in England there is no not proven. You discredit the Scottish legal system if you think some man can't get a not guilty verdict in a rape trial.

Not all trials are the same as this one. 

In some cases you can prove indefinitely that it didn’t happen, eg the person is a virgin, cctv to show you weren’t even there etc, witnesses to state you couldn’t possibly have done it cos you were sat with them at the time. 

Obviously in the Scottish or any system you can prove your not guilty in these situations. 

In this case: 

If anyone met a girl on the Internet (tinder, very common these days). Went over - had consensual sex (maybe even a bit rough if your into that), and then after the woman said you raped her, you can’t prove you didn’t do it. 

You did have sex. You have 0 witnesses and you confirmed you were there. 

Youd say she invited you on tinder - but that doesn’t prove she wanted to have sex.

When there are only 2 people involved and you both state you had sex, but one says it’s consensual and the other doesn’t how can you prove your innocence? 

 

Ovviously on the exact opposite side of this, how can she prove she didn’t consent? I can see absolutely it’s a very awkward situation from both sides. 

 

Dave Chappelle once joked in his stand up that they should forget prenuptial agreements, and have pre intercourse consent forms! 

[Laird Lugton]

25 minutes ago, Lloyd90 said:

Not all trials are the same as this one. 

In some cases you can prove indefinitely that it didn’t happen, eg the person is a virgin, cctv to show you weren’t even there etc, witnesses to state you couldn’t possibly have done it cos you were sat with them at the time. 

Obviously in the Scottish or any system you can prove your not guilty in these situations. 

In this case: 

If anyone met a girl on the Internet (tinder, very common these days). Went over - had consensual sex (maybe even a bit rough if your into that), and then after the woman said you raped her, you can’t prove you didn’t do it. 

You did have sex. You have 0 witnesses and you confirmed you were there. 

Youd say she invited you on tinder - but that doesn’t prove she wanted to have sex.

When there are only 2 people involved and you both state you had sex, but one says it’s consensual and the other doesn’t how can you prove your innocence? 

 

Ovviously on the exact opposite side of this, how can she prove she didn’t consent? I can see absolutely it’s a very awkward situation from both sides. 

 

Dave Chappelle once joked in his stand up that they should forget prenuptial agreements, and have pre intercourse consent forms! 

Hence the reason everyone is now stressing you must get consent.

 

Of those 1,878 there must be a fair few that don't hold up to scrutiny and were knocked into touch at that point, yet of the 251 where the Procurator Fiscal thought the chances of a conviction were high (i.e. the burden of proof was high) 153 accused were able to prove their innocence.....

[12gauge82]

Put it this way, it is commonly believed far far more people get away with rape than are wrongfully convicted, even one person wrongfully convicted is obviously one too many, but without making rape legal how can the legal system be made safer? The answer is it probably can't, the evidence seems to suggest it is a crime with a shockingly low conviction rate.

[Gordon R]

It is one person's word against another. She was convincing - he wasn't. Read what the Sherriff said and you will understand why he came to his verdict.

[hod]

3 hours ago, Laird Lugton said:

As child in Scotland I remember my mother telling me a good way of looking at a "not proven" verdict as meaning we know you did it but can't prove it. If the jury/judge thought you were innocent then a not guilty verdict would have been passed.

 

 

This it, in a nutshell.

 

Of all things for folks to get bent of shape about, hearing this guy had to pay £80k damages for rape in a civil case is a strange one. Plenty more deserving cases out there.