Woman sues Lotto rapist

Apologies for the Sun-style headline, but it seemed the best way to sum this story up :)

Anyway, do you think this is a victory of the common person defeating beurocratic nonsense? Or do you think it's a rather scary overturning of what was a sensible law?

Personally I'm thinking the latter at the moment. Granted he's a very nasty piece of work, but let's not forget he was tried and convicted of the crime long ago, so from a "criminal" point of view he has already faced his legal punishment. Does this mean he is now fair game to be repeatedly punished for the same crime for the rest of his life? Oddly enough the woman only seemed interested in sueing him after he suddenly became a millionnaire, calling it "justice". But surely "justice" is what the criminal sentence was for nearly 20 years ago?

I suppose it makes sense that, in addition to criminal convictions, victims can sue for damages in civil courts. But I really think the 6 year time limit was a good thing as otherwise a criminal can be re-punished at any point in the entire rest of his life, even when the criminal sentence has been served.

It's easy to say things like "so what, he/she was a scummy criminal and deserves what they get", and on a personal level I'd probably agree, but I think the proper judiciary system should really be above that kind of lynch-mob mentality. Punish people for crimes, but allow them the chance to lead a normal life when the punishment is over.

I tend to agree with the criminal in this case!

You can't retrospectively get more claim money of someone because they are now richer. Whatever she was due should have been awarded at the time, even if the bloke had to work in the community to pay it off.

Si.

I agree with Si, here. Let's face it, she's heard he's got money now and she wants it. I know he did something terrible to her, but he was sentenced and punished for the crime. It's only pure chance that he's won the money, and entirely seperate from the case.

I think I'll need to pass on this subject - I'd rather we just scrap the lottery :(

I don't think there should be a civil claim, but I do think that he should have been in prison for longer. How long would depend on the details of the case.

Mind you, it's probably irrelevant as he'll be able to afford some very expensive lawyers to defend himself.

Quote:

---

"I've succeeded in changing a law which will provide others in the future with a means of achieving justice.

"It was this rather than financial gain which motivated me to begin this process two years ago."

---

So obviously, now she's won her appeal and set her precedent, she'll be dropping the case since all that is left is financial gain. Or perhaps she's spouting the usual sanctimonious bollocks people say when trying bootlessly to hide their baser motives.

This case troubles me for several reasons. Firstly, I don't understand how anyone can take money from someone who traumatised them that severely. If she got a million pounds and bought a house, wouldn't every part of that house reminder her of being raped?

Secondly, the precedent is dangerous because it doesn't just apply in this case - it applies to every case. It makes it more attractive to fake a rape allegation against a wealthy person because if you get them convicted, you're guaranteed a huge payout.

Thirdly, what of the teenager who does something stupid, serves his time and then tries to make something of his life. Supposing he actually succeeds in life having learned a terrible lesson early on. What motivation is there for the young offender if you know that anything you achieve can be taken away from you at any point during the rest of your life?

This is one of those decisions where you might be tempted to side with the victim in these circumstances but the decision doesn't just affect these two people - it becomes a legal precedent and will be followed for decades to come (the six year rule has been on the books for 400 years). It won't make the world a better place, it will just make a few more people greedy and a few more lawyers wealthy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lissa

This case troubles me for several reasons. Firstly, I don't understand how anyone can take money from someone who traumatised them that severely. If she got a million pounds and bought a house, wouldn't every part of that house reminder her of being raped?

---

Equally, there's presumably nothing to stop him turning up at court with a cheque made out to her for a million pounds in his pocket, waving it in her face and handing it over in the knowledge that he can easily afford it.

Look North has had a little more context- apparently the "lotto rapist" didn't actually rape this woman but assaulted her in a park, and while the victim apparently still suffers psychiatric problems (which don't prevent her from pursuing a court case or, presumably, from managing any money she receives) I had a "shouting at the television" moment when the victim's daughter was interviewed and said "he's committed a crime and he should pay". No, you silly woman, he committed a crime and he paid the penalty of the law at the time he was convicted- that's all anybody should ever be expected to do. There was a loophole which allowed him to buy a lottery ticket and become a multi-millionaire, but nobody could reasonably have predicted that it would actually happen given that the odds on winning the lottery are long enough as it is.

Rape is (understandably) an emotive issue and one where most people's instinctive response is to side with the victim, but the law should be above emotional arguments and political correctness. Incidentally, it looks as if most of the cases pursued following this ruling will be against children's homes and local authorities where children have been abused while in care, because obviously somebody who spent most of their life earning an ordinary wage isn't worth suing.

Yes I saw Look North too. The daughter was complaining about how unfair it was that he was now "living the life of Riley" (as if buying lottery tickets and living the life of Riley is somehow illegal for ex-offenders), she also called it an "injustice" that he had all this money and her mother didn't. So I'm sure in their minds they were fighting for "justice" in this case, it's just that their idea of what "justice" is is all based on emotion and the total opposite of what legal "justice" should be.

This caused my wife to spin off on her solution. It she'd had her way, he'd have been strung up for being a rapist, problem sorted.

Lawyers would find it harder to make a living if my wife ever comes into power. However rope manufacturers would be in for a windfall ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WhiteCrowUK

This caused my wife to spin off on her solution. It she'd had her way, he'd have been strung up for being a rapist, problem sorted.

Lawyers would find it harder to make a living if my wife ever comes into power. However rope manufacturers would be in for a windfall ...

---

I like your wife ;) :D

:eek Help me - I appear to have 'slided' into an alternative dimension where PS is only posted to by Batman at the Controls using a variety of pseudonyms :hide

AFAIK all the Law Lords have done is look back at a decision they made years ago to limit the claim time to within 6 years, and now come to the conclusion that they were wrong to set such a time limit.

All that means is if Mrs A takes up her case, the judge will not be forced to instantly dismiss it, but that in no ways means that (a) he will allow the case to take place or (b) that she'll get a penny.

I can't really see that a crown prosecution and conviction and prison sentence should be seen as somehow paying her back personally for her suffering - she doesn't bring the case, the crown do on our behalf. As a society we say that such a crime is unacceptable and that for the public good a prison sentence is required. Surely that's the whole point about civil cases - they are brought by the wronged individual to seek personal recompense.

Now I'm not denying that the thought of a big payout isn't on Mrs A's mind, but I know from personal experience that the idea that courts will get someone to pay £2 a month for umpteen years to pay off a fine is a soul destroying exercise. I seem to recall a previous discussion on here about how insultingly low the victim payments from the government were, and I'd definitely want any friend of mine in this position to have to go through a single court case, get their money and move on with their lives

(actually, if it were a relative of mine I'd be more along the lines of rapidly acting anaesthetic - now you're peeing through a hole for the rest of your days kind of payback)

As for the childrens homes bit - the fact they are now liable is a competely separate issue, and I'd definitely support someone who had suffered institutuional abuse getting their money - after all, what happens if the original perpetrator died a year later ? We're talking about seriously damaged victims here, not Jeremy Kyle style nerks out to make a buck.

I think everyone should now go and watch The Shawshank Redemption and feel their troubles slip away.

Now, if I could only find a way home.....:flash

Doesn't everyone already pee through a hole :confused:

Quote:

---

As for the childrens homes bit - the fact they are now liable is a competely separate issue, and I'd definitely support someone who had suffered institutuional abuse getting their money - after all, what happens if the original perpetrator died a year later ? We're talking about seriously damaged victims here, not Jeremy Kyle style nerks out to make a buck.

---

If this case had come about without the guy winning the lottery, then I'd be entirely supportive of Mrs.A's actions. I'd welcome the case as a way of deterring potential rapists.

What the Government should actually do is abolish the Lottery.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zbigniev Hamson

Doesn't everyone already pee through a hole :confused:

---

True, but unless you've had an unfortunate accident the hole is in something a man might consider rather important, rather than just a gaping hole.:cry:eek;)