[Misc] Civil court question.

[The Clamp]

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.

 

[father_and_son]

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.

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

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.

 

[Worried Man Blues]

I also wonder how they put an £80k figure on it. Is that a totting up procedure?

 

[nwgull]

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?

 

[The Clamp]

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.

 

[BigGully]

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 ?

 

[boik]

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!

 

[The Clamp]

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.

 

[nwgull]

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.

 

[wellquickwoody]

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.

It is exactly this kind of case that leads one party to sue and the other to counter sue. Perhaps if genuinely innocent, the aggrieved man should sue for malicous harassment by the alleged victim? All boxxocks I know, but where is the end game?

 

[Worried Man Blues]

Does one get more financial recompense, via civil, if the guilty doesn't go to jail?

 

[Da Man Clay]

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.

Because they are looking at two different standards of proof. There didn’t need to be any more evidence for the civil courts. This sort of thing happens all the time - see OJ Simpson for one particularly well publiscised case.

 

[el punal]

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?

Or . . . how much could THEY claim in damages for the trauma of waking up next to you after a night on the lash?

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

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 ?

Not Proven is not finding someone Guilty. It is probably saying precisely what you note - that there is not sufficient evidence. If they were certain that he didn't do it, it would be "not guilty" ...…. but I am not a lawyer. I don't know if "Not Proven" would come in to play if they thought he was innocent but it wasn't "nailed on". I doubt it, though.

And this is only in Scottish law. It does not exist in English law.

 

[drew]

OJ Simpson was not found guilty in a criminal court but lost a civil case from for wrongful death from the family of Ron Goldman and was ordered to pay $33m in damages.

 

[drew]

It is exactly this kind of case that leads one party to sue and the other to counter sue. Perhaps if genuinely innocent, the aggrieved man should sue for malicous harassment by the alleged victim? All boxxocks I know, but where is the end game?

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

 

[Weststander]

The criminal court was not convinced to the exacting extent required for a conviction.

The civil court found that on the balance of probabilities a rape had occurred.

The young lady was on the radio today and came across as a decent person seeking justice.


This case is not unique. Families of victims of murderers and terrorism have used the civil route, after a criminal case before.

 

[marlowe]

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

The other difference is, which favours the accused, is no criminal record and no custodial sentence if their defence fails.

 

[marlowe]

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.