Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Register Log in

[Misc] Civil court question.



The Clamp

The Clamp

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jan 11, 2016
24,446
West is BEST
Was reading in the paper today about a woman who accused a man of rape, it went to court and the charges were not proven and the man walked. She later took out civil proceedings and he was found guilty by a sheriff (Scotchland) and ordered to pay £80k in damage.

Now,my question is surely if you have been to trial, been found innocent or unproven or acquited or not guilty etc, how is that not the final word? How can somebody then go on to find you guilty without a criminal re-trial? Sounds rather unfair to me.
 




father_and_son

father_and_son

Well-known member
Jan 23, 2012
4,646
Under the Police Box
The Clamp said:
Was reading in the paper today about a woman who accused a man of rape, it went to court and the charges were not proven and the man walked. She later took out civil proceedings and he was found guilty by a sheriff (Scotchland) and ordered to pay £80k in damage.

Now,my question is surely if you have been to trial, been found innocent or unproven or acquited or not guilty etc, how is that not the final word? How can somebody then go on to find you guilty without a criminal re-trial? Sounds rather unfair to me.
Click to expand...

In a nutshell...
Criminal courts require proof beyond "Reasonable Doubt", Civil Courts require proof on the "Balance of Probabilities".

So, for a civil action the court just needs to be reasonably sure, whereas for a criminal conviction the court has to be absolutely sure.
A successful civil suit generally means that it is pretty clear the accused did it, it just couldn't be proven to the degree required for a criminal conviction.
 


DavidinSouthampton

DavidinSouthampton

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jan 3, 2012
16,569
father_and_son said:
In a nutshell...
Criminal courts require proof beyond "Reasonable Doubt", Civil Courts require proof on the "Balance of Probabilities".

So, for a civil action the court just needs to be reasonably sure, whereas for a criminal conviction the court has to be absolutely sure.
A successful civil suit generally means that it is pretty clear the accused did it, it just couldn't be proven to the degree required for a criminal conviction.
Click to expand...

This. But also the original case in Scotland had a verdict of not proven, which Is a verdict that is not possible in England, so maybe that wasn't fair on the victim. Not proven might imply they thought he did do it.
 




nwgull

nwgull

Well-known member
Jul 25, 2003
13,744
Manchester
How much could I claim for damages for some of the fat munters I’ve had the trauma of waking up next to after a night on the lash?
 




The Clamp

The Clamp

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jan 11, 2016
24,446
West is BEST
father_and_son said:
In a nutshell...
Criminal courts require proof beyond "Reasonable Doubt", Civil Courts require proof on the "Balance of Probabilities".

So, for a civil action the court just needs to be reasonably sure, whereas for a criminal conviction the court has to be absolutely sure.
A successful civil suit generally means that it is pretty clear the accused did it, it just couldn't be proven to the degree required for a criminal conviction.
Click to expand...

Thank you. Seems mighty unjust to me. May as well scrap the criminal justice system and do it all through the civil court.
 


B

BigGully

Well-known member
Sep 8, 2006
7,139
DavidinSouthampton said:
Not proven might imply they thought he did do it.
Click to expand...

How can you find someone guilty without sufficient evidence (I am guessing that what is meant by 'not proven' in a criminal court), but on some other vague feeling that you might think he did it anyway in a civil court ?
 
Last edited:






The Clamp

The Clamp

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jan 11, 2016
24,446
West is BEST
BigGully said:
How can you find someone guilty without sufficient evidence (I am guessing that what is meant by 'not proven' in a criminal court), but on some other vague feeling that you might think he did it anyway in a civil court ?
Click to expand...

This is what puzzles me. If there is new evidence then go to re-trial but it’s simply unjust to then use a less stringent court to find him guilty and make him pay 80k.
Don’t get me wrong, if he’s guilty I wanna see him punished but this makes a total mockery of our courts.
I have heard of someone being found guilty in criminal court and then also in a civil court to get compensation but not one or the other.
 




wellquickwoody

wellquickwoody

Many More Voting Years
NSC Patron
Aug 10, 2007
13,619
Melbourne
The Clamp said:
This is what puzzles me. If there is new evidence then go to re-trial but it’s simply unjust to then use a less stringent court to find him guilty and make him pay 80k.
Don’t get me wrong, if he’s guilty I wanna see him punished but this makes a total mockery of our courts.
I have heard of someone being found guilty in criminal court and then also in a civil court to get compensation but not one or the other.
Click to expand...

It is exactly this kind of case that leads one party to sue and the other to counter sue. Perhaps if genuinely innocent, the aggrieved man should sue for malicous harassment by the alleged victim? All boxxocks I know, but where is the end game?
 






D

Da Man Clay

T'Blades
Dec 16, 2004
16,254
The Clamp said:
This is what puzzles me. If there is new evidence then go to re-trial but it’s simply unjust to then use a less stringent court to find him guilty and make him pay 80k.
Don’t get me wrong, if he’s guilty I wanna see him punished but this makes a total mockery of our courts.
I have heard of someone being found guilty in criminal court and then also in a civil court to get compensation but not one or the other.
Click to expand...

Because they are looking at two different standards of proof. There didn’t need to be any more evidence for the civil courts. This sort of thing happens all the time - see OJ Simpson for one particularly well publiscised case.
 






DavidinSouthampton

DavidinSouthampton

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jan 3, 2012
16,569
BigGully said:
How can you find someone guilty without sufficient evidence (I am guessing that what is meant by 'not proven' in a criminal court), but on some other vague feeling that you might think he did it anyway in a civil court ?
Click to expand...

Not Proven is not finding someone Guilty. It is probably saying precisely what you note - that there is not sufficient evidence. If they were certain that he didn't do it, it would be "not guilty" ...…. but I am not a lawyer. I don't know if "Not Proven" would come in to play if they thought he was innocent but it wasn't "nailed on". I doubt it, though.

And this is only in Scottish law. It does not exist in English law.
 


drew

drew

Drew
Oct 3, 2006
23,044
Burgess Hill
OJ Simpson was not found guilty in a criminal court but lost a civil case from for wrongful death from the family of Ron Goldman and was ordered to pay $33m in damages.
 


drew

drew

Drew
Oct 3, 2006
23,044
Burgess Hill
wellquickwoody said:
It is exactly this kind of case that leads one party to sue and the other to counter sue. Perhaps if genuinely innocent, the aggrieved man should sue for malicous harassment by the alleged victim? All boxxocks I know, but where is the end game?
Click to expand...

If you had lost the civil case, on what grounds could you sue for malicious harrassment.
 


Weststander

Weststander

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Aug 25, 2011
63,881
Withdean area
The criminal court was not convinced to the exacting extent required for a conviction.

The civil court found that on the balance of probabilities a rape had occurred.

The young lady was on the radio today and came across as a decent person seeking justice.


This case is not unique. Families of victims of murderers and terrorism have used the civil route, after a criminal case before.
 
Last edited:




M

marlowe

Well-known member
Dec 13, 2015
3,929
The Clamp said:
Thank you. Seems mighty unjust to me. May as well scrap the criminal justice system and do it all through the civil court.
Click to expand...

The other difference is, which favours the accused, is no criminal record and no custodial sentence if their defence fails.
 


M

marlowe

Well-known member
Dec 13, 2015
3,929
It's not something she would have gone into lightly without a strong case because if she had lost she would have been liable for all the legal costs which including her own and the defendant's could have easily reached over £60,000 and probably significantly more.
 


You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here