albion534
Well-known member
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-35501176
am i reading it correctly, is the judge saying the family should fork out?
am i reading it correctly, is the judge saying the family should fork out?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-35501176
am i reading it correctly, is the judge saying the family should fork out?
yes they have to fork out £100 k.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-35501176
am i reading it correctly, is the judge saying the family should fork out?
They might have, It is the costs of Northumbria police that they have to pay.Surely some solicitor has taken this case on a "no win no fee" basis?
I dont think it was his wife/ex wife that sued , it was his brother and sister that brought the claim, so maybe the judge did detect an element of greed and subsequently ordered costs paid.While I have every sympathy for the individuals involved... I (and apparently the Judge in this case) don't believe the force were negligent.
I'm sure there are procedures and risk assessments about when to put officers on a specific alert but they should ALWAYS be aware that they will be targeted by some unpleasant individuals at random times/places/situations.
The officer involved was unlucky, but my understanding was he received the compensation that was due to him, along with all the support that the force muster for those injured while on duty (I personally know one ex-copper who was shot and received a cash sum, early pension and loads of medical help - far more than a member of the public would have got had they been the victim).
However, usually with the "help" of solicitors, some people get greedy and want to go for more money. The judge seems to think this is one of those instances. Organisations and individuals must be protected against spurious lawsuits and so the loser picks up the tab for both sides (in most cases). That is all that has happened here.
I have every sympathy for the family over the original events and subsequent tragic loss. I have no sympathy for them trying to screw the UK tax payers for more than the original compensation with an unfounded and unnecessary legal case.
I dont think it was his wife/ex wife that sued , it was his brother and sister that brought the claim, so maybe the judge did detect an element of greed and subsequently ordered costs paid.
i think his brief or barrister are at fault here , by the sounds of it , the case was patently unwinnable. I am all for armed/emergency services receiving the best equipment/medical treatment etc , but there comes a time when you just have to accept that you were unlucky.To be fair to the family though, according to the report 'PC Rathband began the civil action before he took his own life in 2012, and it was continued by his brother and sister.' Maybe they thought it's what their late brother would have wanted - especially as it patently was what the poor man wanted.
Sad story but then again it may deter people from suing the police/NHS , this American disease of suing at the slightest thing from the straight and narrow is out of order and greedy in most cases . At the end of the day we are all only human and everyone will make mistakes . The Police or NHS can't afford claims which may run into millions , where as it could be better spent back into policing and health service .
Hear hear. The NHS public liability insurance is absolutely massive. We have a 22bn funding deficit and trusts are paying out millions every day for spurious claims.
Maybe worth doing a double take, stop posting like Gideon Osborne, and consider that this particular claim was brought about by - before he took his own life - a serving police officer who was shot twice at point blank range as he was sitting, unarmed, in his car and blinded by some pumped-up loser with a shotgun during the execution of his duties. In what way is that a spurious claim?
Whilst its a very sad case, it doesnt stop it from being a spurious one.
Maybe worth doing a double take, stop posting like Gideon Osborne, and consider that this particular claim was brought about by - before he took his own life - a serving police officer who was shot twice at point blank range as he was sitting, unarmed, in his car and blinded by some pumped-up loser with a shotgun during the execution of his duties. In what way is that a spurious claim?
It's horrific what happened to him by a crazed criminal, but how were the police negligent?