Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 34
  1. #1
    Members The Clamp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    West is BEST
    Posts
    6,931

    Civil court question.


    0 Not allowed!
    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.
    Love Great Britain
    Love the EU
    Love Inclusion and Progression.

    • North Stand Chat

      advertising
      Join Date: Jul 2003
      Posts: Lots

        


    • #2
      Members father_and_son's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jan 2012
      Location
      SWC
      Posts
      2,955


      3 Not allowed!
      Quote Originally Posted by The Clamp View Post
      This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
      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.
      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.
    • #3

      1 Not allowed!
      Quote Originally Posted by father_and_son View Post
      This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
      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.
      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.
      "In football, everything is complicated by the presence of the opposing team". Jean-Paul Sartre.
    • #4
      Members Worried Man Blues's Avatar
      Join Date
      Feb 2009
      Location
      NANTGAREDIG
      Posts
      2,339


      0 Not allowed!
      I also wonder how they put an £80k figure on it. Is that a totting up procedure?
      I haven't always followed the stripes. ||||
    • #5
      Members nwgull's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jul 2003
      Location
      Manchester
      Posts
      8,758


      1 Not allowed!
      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?
      To the extreme I rock a mic like a vandal...
    • #6
      Members The Clamp's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jan 2016
      Location
      West is BEST
      Posts
      6,931


      0 Not allowed!
      Quote Originally Posted by father_and_son View Post
      This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
      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.
      Thank you. Seems mighty unjust to me. May as well scrap the criminal justice system and do it all through the civil court.
      Love Great Britain
      Love the EU
      Love Inclusion and Progression.
    • #7
      Members
      Join Date
      Sep 2006
      Posts
      7,110


      0 Not allowed!
      Quote Originally Posted by DavidinSouthampton View Post
      This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
      Not proven might imply they thought he did do it.
      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 by BigGully; 15-10-2018 at 08:52.
    • #8
      Members
      Join Date
      Sep 2011
      Posts
      1,175


      4 Not allowed!
      Quote Originally Posted by nwgull View Post
      This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
      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?
      Not as much as they could claim probably!
    • #9
      Members The Clamp's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jan 2016
      Location
      West is BEST
      Posts
      6,931


      0 Not allowed!
      Quote Originally Posted by BigGully View Post
      This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
      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 ?
      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.
      Love Great Britain
      Love the EU
      Love Inclusion and Progression.
    • #10
      Members nwgull's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jul 2003
      Location
      Manchester
      Posts
      8,758


      0 Not allowed!
      Quote Originally Posted by boik View Post
      This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
      Not as much as they could claim probably!
      Men seem to be held accountable for their actions when hammered, so that’s probably the truth.

      Shane Duffy, for example.
      To the extreme I rock a mic like a vandal...

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •