Not guilty - but pay up!

[Retsdon]

7 hours ago, Lloyd90 said:

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? 

You don't have to. The burden of proof is on the prosecution - and that's why there are such low prosecution and conviction rates for alleged rape.

A civil case is different because it is decided by a judge on the balance of probabilities.

[Mungler]

8 hours ago, Gordon R said:

It is one person's word against another.

This is the nub of it where there is an alleged rape in a social setting. 

We’re not talking jogging in the park, knife comes out and into the bushes. Often those involved know each other, there’s alcohol involved (again, often it’s both parties), there’s no physical evidence such as defensive wounds and it’s commonly accepted there was a build up of sexual activity of sorts and the nub is was there consent or did someone say ‘no’.

The basis of the defence is going to be consent and unless you’ve got that in writing or on video it can always be up for a debate later on.

My concern with solely oral evidence is that some people are better liars than others but deeper than that is that someone will wake up everyday and convince themselves of their version of events; pretty soon thereafter a lie becomes cemented as fact in the mind and presented well as such.

Take the Ronaldo allegation - who knows what happened in that hotel room nearly a decade ago that again will fall to oral evidence if the case proceeds to Court.

Right or wrong I cant but help think that in situations such as this most girls would be safest listening to the practical advice of their nan. If you’ve a girly and you’ve been laughing at all his jokes and rubbing up against him on the dance floor sll evening and then go back to his place at 2 am, hes either going to be the famous Nescafé actor Anthony Head and you’re game on for a delicious cup of coffee or....

[Lloyd90]

4 hours ago, Retsdon said:

You don't have to. The burden of proof is on the prosecution - and that's why there are such low prosecution and conviction rates for alleged rape.

A civil case is different because it is decided by a judge on the balance of probabilities.

Yes, but the fact that he wasn’t able to get a not guilty verdict has gone on to have serious repercussions in the civil case.

Some would argue it is impossible to get a not guilty verdict in cases with no witnesses etc. So you could be accused of something you didn’t do, and the accuser then sues you for £80k! 

 

Maybe my vision is a bit skewed! I’ve spent last few years working with few people with personality disorders - have a list of literally hundreds (probably thousands) of sexual assault / rape allegations against anyone who simply annoys them - pretty much all proven to be totally impossible and false. 

[daveboy]

If this had been a normal assault ( a punch in the stomach for example) and was one persons word against the other

it would never result in a charge, never mind a court case.

 

 

[Gordon R]

Quote

Some would argue it is impossible to get a not guilty verdict in cases with no witnesses etc.

Some would be totally wrong.

[Vince Green]

55 minutes ago, Lloyd90 said:

I’ve spent last few years working with few people with personality disorders - have a list of literally hundreds (probably thousands) of sexual assault / rape allegations against anyone who simply annoys them - pretty much all proven to be totally impossible and false. 

A friend's wife who was a WPC said much the same, she was one of the first specialist officers when the Met set up what is now Sapphire. Its a common manifestation with some forms of mental illness. I think they can see through most of those fairly easily. There are also a lot of bogus allegations made against police officers which I would find a bit more scary if I was a copper.

[figgy]

This case shows the stupidity of our legal system.  If your found guilty of a crime then compensation may be liable but not guilty verdict should mean exactly that. Not be dragged through a civil case and made to pay on probabilities.

This could open the floodgates for any money grabbing unscrupulous folk. History has shown their to be plenty of them about.

[ShootingEgg]

Just now, figgy said:

This case shows the stupidity of our legal system.  If your found guilty of a crime then compensation may be liable but not guilty verdict should mean exactly that. Not be dragged through a civil case and made to pay on probabilities.

This could open the floodgates for any money grabbing unscrupulous folk. History has shown their to be plenty of them about.

He wasnt found not guilty though, verdict was not proven, not enough evidence to prove it did happen. But nothing to say guilty/not guilty. 

The legal system is a joke, and 80k is insane for a her word against his, listening to her on radio last night, she said she couldn't remember getting home, then not sure how she got into her room. It is never going to be an easy case, and its one thing that normally only the people involved are present so will always be one against other. 

 

[Mickeydredd]

15 hours ago, Gordon R said:

I have to agree.

The original complainant had to accept the criminal court's verdict, but clearly was not happy. She took an option which was open to her and succeeded. She would rightly ask what our problem was.

I suppose, for many, the problem may be partly the financial reward.  She got her verdict in a court so vindicated her claims, why would she want to benefit financially too?

[Uilleachan]

20 minutes ago, Mickeydredd said:

I suppose, for many, the problem may be partly the financial reward.  She got her verdict in a court so vindicated her claims, why would she want to benefit financially too?

Financial awards are made by the court to compensate for "Damages" incurred, they're not set by the claimant.  

 

[Rewulf]

31 minutes ago, Mickeydredd said:

I suppose, for many, the problem may be partly the financial reward.  She got her verdict in a court so vindicated her claims, why would she want to benefit financially too?

Its unlikely she will see a penny according to the story I read, it will be swallowed up by court costs, thats if he HAS any money to start with ?

[scotslad]

A few still seem to be struggling with the fact he trial ended Not Proven and not not guility as lairg amoungst others has been trying to point out.

 

If u are found to be not proven u can still end up in court again for the same crime if more evidence turns up linking u too it, if u were found not guilty u've got off scot free no matter wot turns up (double jepody, or it was the many years ago when we were taught about scots law)

 

Dunno how i fell about the damages, it certainly will make it open season on footballers and celebrities.

 

 

[Rewulf]

1 minute ago, scotslad said:

Dunno how i fell about the damages, it certainly will make it open season on footballers and celebrities.

Already happening

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-42152358

The Ronaldo case also, appears to be more about money than anything else, he will just quietly pay them off I would think.

[scotslad]

I know there footballers but the wages in scotland are terrible (well in comparision to elsewhere) unless u play for the bigot brothers.

Most players wages will be on par with 2nd or 3rd tier english clubs, so 100K is a massive ammount of money to them.

[arjimlad]

It's not as though the civil court won't hear evidence, cross examine witnesses and make up its own mind whether it is more likely than not that the rape occurred.

The standard of proof is different in criminal cases because it's the resources of the State/society lined up against the individual, with the power to deprive the defendant of his/her liberty if convicted. 

It may seem unfair but the complainant would still have had to provide convincing evidence that it was more likely than not that she was raped.

 

[Stonepark]

I am not sure how enforceable any claims for the money will be given it would require a visit to the English courts to obtain, where under English law he could claim he was not found guilty of the offence and as such the civil court is in error in granting a decree for compensation.

[Rewulf]

4 minutes ago, Stonepark said:

I am not sure how enforceable any claims for the money will be given it would require a visit to the English courts to obtain, where under English law he could claim he was not found guilty of the offence and as such the civil court is in error in granting a decree for compensation.

Yes he could take it higher, and potentially end up with costs that make the £80 k look like loose change.

[Stonepark]

1 minute ago, Rewulf said:

Yes he could take it higher, and potentially end up with costs that make the £80 k look like loose change.

Scottish sherriff officers can only operate in scotland. In order for the money to be gotten, the claimant will have to go to an English court to enforce the judgement, at that point the validity could be challanged as unenforceable due to english guilty/not guilty rules. This would not necessarily be expensive and may just be a simple point of law.

 

I am not a lawyer but i am aware that there are differences between Scottish and English legal systems and that she may have 'won' in a scottish civil court , it may only be a 'hollow' victory.

[Gordon R]

Quote

at that point the validity could be challanged as unenforceable due to english guilty/not guilty rules. This would not necessarily be expensive and may just be a simple point of law.

The difference is in the Criminal Court - Scotland have a "Not Proven" verdict.

As he wasn't found guilty by the Criminal Court, but culpable by a Civil Court, the point doesn't arise.

I am struggling with people's inability to accept the verdict. The girl was not happy with the original verdict and pursued it. She won, but the award will go in legal fees, so she could hardly be described as a gold digger.

[ShootingEgg]

54 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

 

I am struggling with people's inability to accept the verdict. The girl was not happy with the original verdict and pursued it. She won, but the award will go in legal fees, so she could hardly be described as a gold digger.

But on the flip side to that, her story / version of events were not good enough to claim a conviction. So he could now be equally as miffed as to why he is now looking at an 80k debt. 

[Laird Lugton]

2 hours ago, ShootingEgg said:

But on the flip side to that, her story / version of events were not good enough to claim a conviction. So he could now be equally as miffed as to why he is now looking at an 80k debt. 

But his evidence wasn’t sufficient for a not guilty verdict either. For the final time it was NOT PROVEN. Therefore he was not found to be not guilty.

If he had been convicted would she have taken it to the civil court?

This is probably more to do with seeking some kind of justice than for financial gain.

 

[Gordon R]

Quote

But on the flip side to that, her story / version of events were not good enough to claim a conviction. So he could now be equally as miffed as to why he is now looking at an 80k debt. 

A trial by Jury does not guarantee a just verdict. Acquittal rates are high, so the odds are favourable for a guilty person. A Judge or Sherriff will have a better grasp of the weight of evidence than a Jury.

In his shoes - I think he got a result - even if it is a substantial sum. In her shoes - she got an acceptance that she was in fact raped, but will see no financial gain.

None of us heard both cases, so I still wonder why people are so willing to believe the lad.

[Laird Lugton]

6 hours ago, Lloyd90 said:

 

Some would argue it is impossible to get a not guilty verdict in cases with no witnesses etc. So you could be accused of something you didn’t do, and the accuser then sues you for £80k! 

But do the fact bear out your theory?

Of those statistics I gave earlier more than half of the accused that went to trial were able to prove their innocence. Not all will have been “rape in a social setting” as Mungler called it but then of the 1800 ish reported rapes/attempted rapes I imagine a fair few of the 1550 ish cases that didn’t make it to court would have been rape in a social setting with no case to answer....

Edited October 16, 2018 by Laird Lugton

[henry d]

1 hour ago, Gordon R said:

A trial by Jury does not guarantee a just verdict. Acquittal rates are high, so the odds are favourable for a guilty person. A Judge or Sherriff will have a better grasp of the weight of evidence than a Jury.

You got that right!

My wife was part of a jury (in Scotland) and said she would never want to be tried by a jury as half made up there mind within the first hour and the rest couldn`t be bothered to take notes and relied on memory, and the case went on for a week! I believe that "not proven" used to be known as the **illegitimate** verdict (swear filter)

Edited October 16, 2018 by henry d

[Retsdon]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9134799/Sexual-assault-survey-80-of-women-dont-report-rape-or-sexual-assault-survey-claims.html

These stats above would bear out what common sense would suggest. Most rape goes unreported. After all, what woman would want to stand up in court for days on end while doubtless being publicly accused of being either a slut, a fantasist, or a malicious liar, or likely all three -  on the off chance that the bloke who went ahead and forced himself on her while they were alone and possibly both under the influence might just get convicted. And before that, there's the business of telling the story to the police, physical examinations, intimate photographs for evidence, etc, etc. It's a horrifically traumatic process to be gone through on the statistically unlikely chance that the man might actually  a)get  taken to court an then  b) get convicted.  Consequently, if the stats are to be believed, most women put the incident down to experience and try and move on.

And that brings us to this case. I haven't read about it, but it seems very strange that a woman would put herself through all that to falsely accuse a man of rape - and then when he's not convicted she instigates and funds a by no means cut and dried civil case, thereby risking substantial financial loss on top of the stress, etc of the police investigation and criminal case. Of course, it may be that she's a malicious harridan or a lunatic or plain evil.We'll perhaps never know. But I'm far more inclined to think that she simply wants some form of justice to be served. 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 16, 2018 by Retsdon