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.