[Misc] Civil court question.

[marlowe]

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

Probably only on the grounds that he could prove he definitely did not do it.

 

[father_and_son]

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

I believe there are substantial restrictions which normally apply to stop everything ending up a civil matter... I think it only applies in England if the Judge instructs the jury to return a certain verdict or the case cannot be resolved by a jury (after two trials?). As was stated above, the fact this has crossed between the Scottish and English courts may also have allowed this particular loophole.

It's also a big gamble for the accuser... if the court does not find in their favour, they could be presented with a large bill for the cost of defending the case (and the courts don't like vexatious lawsuits so damages could easily be awarded the other way). Ultimately, their legal team would have to have been very confident of winning the case to even suggest taking the matter to the civil courts!

 

[alfredmizen]

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?

for the replacement of your arm after you chewed it off ?

 

[drew]

Probably only on the grounds that he could prove he definitely did not do it.

Then he wouldn't have lost the civil case in the first place! If he lost the civil case he would surely have to have a successful appeal before he could then pursue a claim for malicious prosecution!

 

[GT49er]

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.

O.J Simpson?

 

[GT49er]

I wonder if we'll now see a spate of cases resulting from events that took place on 18-31 holidays in the 70s and 80s. The prospect of getting £80K for having a night of drunken sex might be quite appealing to some..............

 

[drew]

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

And how would someone end up in jail if we had no criminal justice system?

 

[NooBHA]

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.

I qualified in Scots Law many many years ago but haven't really used the Criminal Aspect of it for 30 years. The Civil Courts and Laws are much the same as in England but the Criminal System can in some instances be very different due to ''Case Law'' ; however, I always remember a Tutor once saying. ''Although the Criminal and Civil Courts are very different you can overlap them both if you want a ''definitive ruling'' on a case.

In Criminal Law a case can take place and a final ruling may never be reached (That's ''Not Proven'' ). With Civil Law, there has to be, except in really extenuating circumstance where a ''final ruling'' is not made. It may not be an outcome people look for because the Judiciary decides and not the Public but in about 98% of cases a ruling on one side or the other is usually reached.

 

[The Clamp]

And how would someone end up in jail if we had no criminal justice system?

Very good point. As you can tell, the whole things perplexes me.

 

[The Clamp]

I qualified in Scots Law many many years ago but haven't really used the Criminal Aspect of it for 30 years. The Civil Courts and Laws are much the same as in England but the Criminal System can in some instances be very different due to ''Case Law'' ; however, I always remember a Tutor once saying. ''Although the Criminal and Civil Courts are very different you can overlap them both if you want a ''definitive ruling'' on a case.

In Criminal Law a case can take place and a final ruling may never be reached (That's ''Not Proven'' ). With Civil Law, there has to be, except in really extenuating circumstance where a ''final ruling'' is not made. It may not be an outcome people look for because the Judiciary decides and not the Public but in about 98% of cases a ruling on one side or the other is usually reached.

Thanks, sheds a bit more light on the matter.

 

[marlowe]

I wonder if we'll now see a spate of cases resulting from events that took place on 18-31 holidays in the 70s and 80s. The prospect of getting £80K for having a night of drunken sex might be quite appealing to some..............

.......the prospect of a hefty legal bill not so much.

 

[Nottseagull]

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.

Unless she's 'on the social' with no assets. She might have found a solicitor willing to take the case on a 'no win, no fee' basis, ensuring that she couldn't lose either way.

 

[Weststander]

Unless she's 'on the social' with no assets. She might have found a solicitor willing to take the case on a 'no win, no fee' basis, ensuring that she couldn't lose either way.

Her civil case was funded by the Scottish Legal Aid Board and Rape Crisis Scotland.

In the Scottish criminal courts the chances of a successful rape conviction are even lower than in England and Wales, as prosecutors need two independent pieces of evidence to corroborate an allegation, which can make it harder to prove sexual assaults and rapes that take place without witnesses, particularly if, as in many cases, the attack is not reported immediately.

In addition, Scotland uses juries of 15 people who have three verdicts available: one of guilty and two of acquittal – not proven or not guilty. In rape cases, the not proven option increases the chances a prosecution will fail.

It's worth noting that after his arrest, Coxon answered "no comment" to all police questions. At the criminal trial, many of his assertions were proved to be incorrect by matters of facts or independent witnessed.

 

[marlowe]

Unless she's 'on the social' with no assets. She might have found a solicitor willing to take the case on a 'no win, no fee' basis, ensuring that she couldn't lose either way.

A solicitor would not take on a case on a no win no fee basis unless the solicitor believed she had a very strong case and a good chance of winning otherwise what would be in it for the solicitor?

Additionally if she lost on a no win no fee basis she would still be liable for the Defendant's costs.