Jump to content

Not guilty - but pay up!


Lloyd90
 Share

Recommended Posts

 

 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?! 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 172
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

7 minutes 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 award is being made in a civil court, not a criminal court. BBC says: "Civil cases require a lower standard of proof than criminal cases, with judgements made on the balance of probabilities rather than beyond reasonable doubt." Proving sexual crimes in a criminal court is nearly impossible, the system is not fit for that purpose. You can bring a civil case if a criminal one isn't taken up by the CPS. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The legal system is constructed to make lawyers lots of money rather than deliver a fair and equitable service. In these cases where there's no admissible evidence and it's one person's word against another, proof is hard to come by so criminal courts err toward avoiding injustice, especially after several recent cases of false and malicious accusation. Civil cases without admissible evidence tend to be won by the most confident witnesses and the best lawyers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, johnphilip said:

Ok you did not rape me but i still want £ 80,000 . 

Exactly!

Massive financial incentive now for women to claim they were sexually assaulted or raped, have no proof, the bloke not get convicted in court and then still have to pay the accuser £80,000! 

I know one bloke who spent time inside for a false accusation, the Police repeatedly told him confess and do 2 years or don’t and spend 5+ inside. The poor guy confessed because they’d totally bodged the investigation. 

The woman was later charged after trying to falsely accuse 2 other blokes of the same thing and admitting it was all a sham! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Lloyd90 said:

I know one bloke who spent time inside for a false accusation, the Police repeatedly told him confess and do 2 years or don’t and spend 5+ inside. The poor guy confessed because they’d totally bodged the investigation

The woman was later charged after trying to falsely accuse 2 other blokes of the same thing and admitting it was all a sham! 

I have zero sympathy for him, why confess when he was innocent!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The sad fact is, rape is one of the most difficult of all crimes to prove, the usual lack of witnesses amongst other issues specific to that crime mean it's one that guilty people often walk away from as free men, Blackstone's formula states it is better 10 guilty persons escape than one innocent suffer.

The civil court only has to prove on the balance of probability, due to the inherent difficulty of proving rape, without there being some solid evidence, I'd say it would usually still be difficult to prove.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 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. 

He wasn’t found, “basically not guilty” though Lloyd.

He wasn’t found guilty but he was not found to be innocent either.

If a different court (ie. civil) is satisfied that he is guilty enough to warrant the compensation then so be it, that is not at odds with what the criminal court found.

As mentioned, there is a big difference between criminal and civil verdicts. What would be absolutely wrong is if someone was found “not guilty” in a criminal case requiring a greater burden of proof but then treated as guilty in a subsequent civil case.

To take it full circle, this guy was not cleared of the alleged offence in criminal court but was in civil court. Fair enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Munzy said:

What would be absolutely wrong is if someone was found “not guilty” in a criminal case requiring a greater burden of proof but then treated as guilty in a subsequent civil case.

Which is exactly what happened to O J Simpson. Yes I know it's America but their legal system is closely based on ours and yes, everyone always knew he was guilty, but legally he was found not guilty yet still ended up losing a civil case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

If this story was about an anti disrupting a shoot and being found not guilty, then the shoot taking out a civil case and winning compensation I'm pretty sure those on here voicing opinions about the rape case will be singing a different tune.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From mygov .scot

Not proven or not guilty

This means there wasn't enough evidence to prove the case 'beyond reasonable doubt' or there were other reasons why the accused wasn't found guilty.

Both these verdicts have the same effect and mean the accused will be excused from the court – they will be free to leave.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes 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.

Who on here can honestly say that if their loved one was raped and the attacker found not guilty wouldn't seek justice another way if it was offered. Or would they just accept that their loved one is a liar.

Edited by toontastic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, toontastic said:

If this story was about an anti disrupting a shoot and being found not guilty, then the shoot taking out a civil case and winning compensation I'm pretty sure those on here voicing opinions about the rape case will be singing a different tune.

👍 +2

Same kind of thing happened with OJ Simpson, if a civil court found that on balance of probability this parasite had raped a woman then the only regret is the option of letting him rot in a cell wasn't open to them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Munzy said:

He wasn’t found, “basically not guilty” though Lloyd.

He wasn’t found guilty but he was not found to be innocent either.

If a different court (ie. civil) is satisfied that he is guilty enough to warrant the compensation then so be it, that is not at odds with what the criminal court found.

As mentioned, there is a big difference between criminal and civil verdicts. What would be absolutely wrong is if someone was found “not guilty” in a criminal case requiring a greater burden of proof but then treated as guilty in a subsequent civil case.

To take it full circle, this guy was not cleared of the alleged offence in criminal court but was in civil court. Fair enough.

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Yellow Bear said:

From mygov .scot

Not proven or not guilty

This means there wasn't enough evidence to prove the case 'beyond reasonable doubt' or there were other reasons why the accused wasn't found guilty.

Both these verdicts have the same effect and mean the accused will be excused from the court – they will be free to leave.

As far as I understand - basically the same outcome legally as a non guilty verdict. 

They cant say ‘not guilty’ in this case - as it’s basically her word against his, and his against hers. 

Mid they said not guilty feminists and rights activists would be shouting that the court system believe abusers over victims. 

And yet they can’t find him guilty because it’s the same but inverse - they can’t solely take her word because people will go mad saying women can go about accusing anyone with no evidence and get them banged up.  

 

Its probably the PC thing for the court to do - state not proven. Then they can avoid any backlash! 

 

18 minutes ago, toontastic said:

Who on here can honestly say that if their loved one was raped and the attacker found not guilty wouldn't seek justice another way if it was offered. Or would they just accept that their loved one is a liar.

Who here can honestly say that if their loved one, father, son, brother was falsely accused of rape, their wasn’t evidence to prove it, and a woman stated he did, whilst he stated he didn’t,  it went to court and the court stated that there wasn’t evidence to prove that it actually happened, Would think it wrong to have to then pay their accuser? 

Or would they just believe their love one a liar? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Newbie to this said:

I have zero sympathy for him, why confess when he was innocent!

Many people stuck in a bad situation would rather do the 18 months than the 5 years. 

It happens all the time. 

If your well off and can afford a top solicitor your in with a Chance. 

If your from a poor background, not that smart and the police are telling you they’re going to lock you up and throw away the key the pressure is on. 

Any people can tell me it don’t happen, but I’ve been the appropriate adult for a young man with autism who was accused of rape and it was 100% proven he didn’t do it  by forensic squad etc. 

The woman rape detective told me when she first saw him she could tell he was guilty because he was acting funny. 

Then there was that lad in London, the Police had the woman’s phone with text messaging stating she’s made it all up to her mates and they chose not to submit that because they wanted to look good! 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Westward said:

Which is exactly what happened to O J Simpson. Yes I know it's America but their legal system is closely based on ours and yes, everyone always knew he was guilty, but legally he was found not guilty yet still ended up losing a civil case.

Yes, was going to mention that as an example. I don’t know much about how the criminal and civil courts work in line with each other thus the OJ Simpson case baffles me.

Following his acquittal I assume a newspaper that printed, “Found not guilty but he definitely did it”, would be sued. I’m confused then as to how a plaintiff in a civil case could be awarded compensation on the basis that he did it when the criminal court has found him not guilty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...