Sueing 7 years after an attempted rape

A crime was committed. The man was prosecuted and convicted. He served his sentence.

That's how the justice system works. The man has done his time. Arguably he didn't do enough time, but that's a seperate matter.

I think this modern custom of people being both criminally and civilly prosecuted is wrong for those cases in which the victim did not suffer financially. If the victim had been stolen from, and the goods/money never returned, then this would be fair. As it is, it is unfair.
 
Deadly Ferret, do you disagree with the entire principle of monetary compensation for pain and suffering then?

Plus it's hardly a modern custom, it's the tort of trespass which has been around a fair while..!
 
Last edited:
Is it not actually 15 years between the attempted rape (May 1989) and his winning the lottery (August 2004), with her first claim failing in 2005 and only just now being overturned in January 2008?

Gut instinct is that yes she should be entitled a portion of his money but then, how do you begin to go about quantifying the impact it has had on her life and then translating it into a monetary sum that should equate to that? How does the situation change when the figure for payment is being decided almost 2 decades after the fact? Surely she is as "over" the incident as she will likely ever be so why the sudden grab for cash? How can it be interpreted in any way other than greed?

One thing that puzzles me is the talk of "he won the money fair and square". Why are prisoners allowed to buy lottery tickets? Aren't they meant to be foregoing certain luxuries in their time there (or is prison now intended to be a rewarding experience?)? What a mental hardship for him knowing that a £7million fortune was awaiting him on release ehh...
 
Rich_L said:
Deadly Ferret, do you disagree with the entire principle of monetary compensation for pain and suffering then?
Click to expand...

Yes. It should only be granted to victims of theft, robbery, criminal damage etc., or as reimbursement for counselling costs incurred by the mentally scarred. Criminal law is there to punish for crimes. Compensation should only be about restoration of material losses.

Compensation for pain & suffering is a legalised con.
 
Amp34 said:
It just sounded a bit like "Forgive and forget, unless it's a child rapist, then get the pitchforks and follow me! YAAAAAA!! Die...etc.etc.":p
Click to expand...

He is one of my best mates, I can safely say that is pretty much what he does on a daily basis.

Rich
 
Deadly Ferret said:
Yes. It should only be granted to victims of theft, robbery, criminal damage etc., or as reimbursement for counselling costs incurred by the mentally scarred. Criminal law is there to punish for crimes. Compensation should only be about restoration of material losses.

Compensation for pain & suffering is a legalised con.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, that's a fairly major and well-established tenet of the English legal system you're arguing against there though, we may have to agree to disagree :p

Could probably write loads on the merits of non-pecuniary loss but don't have the time or the energy :p I'm sure a law student on here somewhere must have an essay they did as part of their tort study on remedies!

Out of interest, what about a situation where counselling was unable to remedy the damage done? Is that simply a case of 'tough luck'?

Or a situation where an individual was wrongfully imprisoned (excluding loss of potential earnings), should damages arise from loss of liberty?
 
Last edited:
I dont think he should have been allowed to play the lotto myself.. When you are behind bars you have your rights taken away. Its the whole point. No way should he of been allowed gamble imo. Maybe she shouldnt have the money... but then i dont belive some guy who has attemped to rape women should have it either. Yes flame away.
 
Last edited:
Rich_L said:
Fair enough, that's a fairly major and well-established tenet of the English legal system you're arguing against there though, we may have to agree to disagree :p

Could probably write loads on the merits of non-pecuniary loss but don't have the time or the energy :p I'm sure a law student on here somewhere must have an essay they did as part of their tort study on remedies!

Out of interest, what about a situation where counselling was unable to remedy the damage done? Is that simply a case of 'tough luck'?
Click to expand...

(I'm sure you realise, but I'll just state it to be sure: I'm not arguing that it isn't law; I'm arguing that it is unfair/that the law is wrong.)

No offence intended to the legal profession or its students, but I doubt they could produce any essay or arguments that would influence my position on this matter. It's a generalisation I do know, but I consider that the average member of that profession has sacrificed a small part of their soul in order to be able to fully embrace the law, and rank it first above justice...

Yeah, 'tough luck'. I know it's harsh and horrible, but it is part of the 'rich tapestry of life' that bad things happen to some of us.


Rich_L said:
Or a situation where an individual was wrongfully imprisoned (excluding loss of potential earnings), should damages arise from loss of liberty?
Click to expand...

Ah well that is different, and yes the state should compensate for the loss of freedom. The all-important difference is that the victim has suffered not through a criminal act (though granted one committed by somebody else was no doubt the kick-off in the whole sorry affair) but through the incompetence of the agents of the law! Being screwed by one's fellow man is a natural part of life, but to be screwed by an artificial system created by the state, to supposedly provide justice as well as order, is not a natural part of life and shouldn't be tolerated! Nor should it go uncompensated.
 
Last edited:
Aye I understand where you're coming from, it's a perfectly reasonable position to take on principle, after all there are a whole host of problems associated with attempting to quantify loss which is by its very nature unmeasurable, not to mention the avenues it opens for fraudulent claims.

I just happen to disagree, pain and suffering, although subjective, IMO is still a very real consequence of other people's actions and despite the difficulties involved in quantifying compensation relating to those aspects I think it's reasonable that we do so.

The comment about writing loads was more musing on previous essays I've done/thoughts I've had rather than thinking I could change your mind btw :p
 
Last edited:
I disagree with this, don't get me wrong, what he did is not acceptable but wasn't this the point of the first punishment, surely the judge could have awarded her some kind of compensation at the first trial? It is wrong to be able to keep suing people after they have served their time. She might do it again in a few more years when she needs some more money and it opens the floodgates for a load more money grabbers.


I am unsure if this is till the case but I was under the belief that in UK law women can't rape a man, only a man can rape a women unlike USA law. her it would just be indecent assault.
 
It;s just a quick way to make money as far as I'm concerned. I'm sure she's over the incident and put it behind her but in todays world of getting rich quick she see's an opportunity to get cash.
 
I'm fairly sure the Judge can make a compensation order as well, but as with her suing the guy at the time, what would be the point as he had no money at the time.
 
jackthezipper said:
It;s just a quick way to make money as far as I'm concerned. I'm sure she's over the incident and put it behind her but in todays world of getting rich quick she see's an opportunity to get cash.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say she was "over it" I can imagine it sticks with you - but she shouldn't be able to get his money, the verdict was reached, he was jailed case CLOSED.

The money however should be taken away from him, he played the lottery when he clearly shouldn't - put it into something else. or rollover the money.

Rich
 
titchard said:
I wouldn't say she was "over it" I can imagine it sticks with you - but she shouldn't be able to get his money, the verdict was reached, he was jailed case CLOSED.

The money however should be taken away from him, he played the lottery when he clearly shouldn't - put it into something else. or rollover the money.

Rich
Click to expand...

err he was allowed to play the lottery or esle he wouldn't have been given the money.
 
Deadly Ferret said:
Yes. It should only be granted to victims of theft, robbery, criminal damage etc., or as reimbursement for counselling costs incurred by the mentally scarred. Criminal law is there to punish for crimes. Compensation should only be about restoration of material losses.

Compensation for pain & suffering is a legalised con.
Click to expand...

ok, hows about someone with a big fat bank account goes and chops a footballers leg off because he plays for the wrong team.
said footballer now has lost his lively-hood and is depressed cos he cant play anymore, hes quality of life is degraded. Why shouldnt he get compensation?
This woman could be mentally scared etc,unable to work late hours or in isolation.. she should receive some financial compensation to improve her quality of life, since the offender reduced it.
 
If she wanted compensation it should have been done long before. I don't think winning the lottery should allow the other person to then submit a claim.

Why should convicted criminals not be allowed to play the lottery? Should they not be allowed to go in a betting shop, buy a scatchcard or visit a casino either then? Or is it just attempted rapists that shouldn't be allowed?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom