Crowd Funding a Prosecution for a serious offence?

balky12 · 10 Nov 2017 at 13:19

Surprised this hasn't already been posted;

https://news.sky.com/story/in-her-o...nding-for-justice-after-alleged-rape-11118199
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-41885897

Not sure how I feel about it, now I know anyone can take anyone to court and that it is a civil matter and no criminal record etc. But with the burden of proof lower, what if she wins?

He named and shamed as a rapist? Does he go on the register?

I am not talking about whether or not the allegation actually happened. But the CPS decided there was lack of evidence, and toxicology came back negative.

Just think it is a very slippery slope...

EDIT added BBC link which has better detail.

Semple · 10 Nov 2017 at 13:29

My understanding of the UK justice system (albeit very little) is that the CPS will usually only proceed with a prosecution if they feel they have a chance of winning it. At the end of the day they are funded by the taxpayer so do have a duty not to squander public money on cases that are unlikely to yield conviction.

A private prosecution i guess is a different matter, because you're funding it yourself. Despite a good lawyer advising you whether your case has a good chance of winning based on the evidence, you could just as well proceed with the case for the judge/jury to find the defendant not guilty and you're then lumped with your own legal costs, plus the legal costs of the defendant. Almost like adding insult to injury...

balky12 · 10 Nov 2017 at 13:36

I understand that, but crowdfunding it would mean you are not using your money. So apart form actually achieving a crowd funding goal, what is stopping people bringing cases against others in a hope they get a win?

Like in this case. Toxicology said she hadn't been drugged as she claimed. CCTV has her walking in with the man. CPS decided not to prosecute because of the lack of evidence. Now she has been given £100k she is taking this man to court. So he has to go through all this again...

Just to clarify however - if he actually did it then he deserves to rot in hell/ but if he didn't then this whole thing just doesn't sit right with me.

The whole why would a woman make it up argument also doesn't work because some unfortunately do. If crowd funding these kind of things gains traction then no doubt some of these crazies might even be funded.

Vonhelmet · 10 Nov 2017 at 13:38

Is a private prosecution decided on the balance of probabilities? I didn't think that was the case.

All this changes is who the prosecuting body is. The CPS acts for the state, but it is not the only body that can prosecute. It would be a worse precedent to set if you dictated that only the CPS could decide what to prosecute as that could be open to abuse in terms of a government body deciding what gets taken to court. The judiciary has to be separate from the legislature and the executive.

Mynight · 10 Nov 2017 at 13:48

Apparently GHB can't be detected in blood 6-8 hours after ingestion but can be in urine. I can understand why she believes the test to be flawed.

What a horrible situation for both of them.

subbytna · 10 Nov 2017 at 13:52

If she was so heavily drugged, why was she able to walk in with him to the hotel, with no issues?

Semple · 10 Nov 2017 at 13:54

balky12 said:
I understand that, but crowdfunding it would mean you are not using your money. So apart form actually achieving a crowd funding goal, what is stopping people bringing cases against others in a hope they get a win?

Like in this case. Toxicology said she hadn't been drugged as she claimed. CCTV has her walking in with the man. CPS decided not to prosecute because of the lack of evidence. Now she has been given £100k she is taking this man to court. So he has to go through all this again...

I don't know her case, but reading the Sky news article, her main claim is that she had been drugged.

Now when the toxicology test came back negative, that's a fundamental piece of evidence going against her. Is she lying about being drugged?

I agree with what you're saying, but in this case the defendant hasn't actually gone through courts for the prosecution to prove he's guilty.

I guess there's nothing stopping others bringing cases forward if funded privately, but i'd wager these will most likely be a waste of time because if there was sufficient evidence then the CPS would have prosecuted in the first place.

Vonhelmet · 10 Nov 2017 at 13:58

subbytna said:
If she was so heavily drugged, why was she able to walk in with him to the hotel, with no issues?

Because you can still walk after being given date rape drugs :confused:

Wikipedia even says that GHB is used to treat narcolepsy and as a performance enhancer for sports, so I don't think it's a clear cut "take GHB, pass out" thing as you seem to be suggesting.

A friend of mine (male) had his drink spiked one night out in town and woke up in the office the next day having walked there and persuaded the security guard to let him in. He had no recollection of anything after about 10pm.

MikeTheNative · 10 Nov 2017 at 13:58

Reading this it seems to be the same as normal criminal court with jury and judge etc. so I have no problem with it.

VincentHanna · 10 Nov 2017 at 13:58

Semple said:
I don't know her case, but reading the Sky news article, her main claim is that she had been drugged.

Now when the toxicology test came back negative, that's a fundamental piece of evidence going against her. Is she lying about being drugged?

What Mynight said is true - GHB leaves the system really quickly.

Vonhelmet · 10 Nov 2017 at 13:59

The article also only says it came back negative for GHB. Now maybe they tested for other things, but if they did, the article doesn't say so.

Tunney · 10 Nov 2017 at 14:02

balky12 said:
Not sure how I feel about it, now I know anyone can take anyone to court and that it is a civil matter and no criminal record etc. But with the burden of proof lower, what if she wins?

She’s bringing a private criminal case. The burden of proof will be the same as if the CPS prosecuted.

Those are some shocking statistics for rape in the article. 15% reported, 6-7% conviction rate for those reported.

glenimp617 · 10 Nov 2017 at 14:14

ITVs Liar?

balky12 · 10 Nov 2017 at 14:23

MikeTheNative said:
Reading this it seems to be the same as normal criminal court with jury and judge etc. so I have no problem with it.

Tunney said:
She’s bringing a private criminal case. The burden of proof will be the same as if the CPS prosecuted.

Those are some shocking statistics for rape in the article. 15% reported, 6-7% conviction rate for those reported.

Moses said:
It’s not a civil matter. It’s a criminal matter. It’s a private prosecution which’d have the same effect as if the CPS had done it.

Thanks for the clarification. Addresses one of my concerns.

Tunney · 10 Nov 2017 at 14:25

Moses said:
Those figures are shocking? Really? Of course they’re going to be low when so many rapes are one person’s word against the other’s.

Yes, a serious crime where 99% of perpetrators escape justice is shocking.

I have no idea what percentage of rapes have signs of violence, drugging or other evidence. I doubt that you do either. That doesn’t change that it’s shocking that so many people get away with it and are free to offend again.

peterwalkley · 10 Nov 2017 at 14:28

Doe this have a realistic chance of going anywhere at all ? I'm thinking of the Glasgow bin lorry **** and the relatives of the 6 victims being refused leave to take out a private prosecution.

Mynight · 10 Nov 2017 at 14:31

peterwalkley said:
Doe this have a realistic chance of going anywhere at all ? I'm thinking of the Glasgow bin lorry **** and the relatives of the 6 victims being refused leave to take out a private prosecution.

I can't imagine the CPS would block a case like this. There would be a lot of backlash.

Haggisman · 10 Nov 2017 at 14:52

Tunney said:
Yes, a serious crime where 99% of perpetrators escape justice is shocking.

I have no idea what percentage of rapes have signs of violence, drugging or other evidence. I doubt that you do either. That doesn’t change that it’s shocking that so many people get away with it and are free to offend again.

To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin, surely it's better that 10 guilty men go free than 1 innocent be punished for something they didn't do?

Whilst I agree rapists should be punished to the full extent of the law, it's an unfortunate reality that the level of evidence required to prove rape beyond reasonable doubt is very high.

Would you prefer the alternative, where simply sleeping with someone (or even not if they manage to get a sample of your semen from somewhere) is enough for you to be found guilty of rape, regardless of the circumstances?

Tunney · 10 Nov 2017 at 15:03

Haggisman said:
Would you prefer the alternative, where simply sleeping with someone (or even not if they manage to get a sample of your semen from somewhere) is enough for you to be found guilty of rape, regardless of the circumstances?

Absolutely not but I don’t think that lowering the burden of proof is the only solution.

Mynight · 10 Nov 2017 at 15:48

Moses said:
So how’d you get a higher proportion of rapists convicted?

You can't without lowering the bar required to prove guilt.

As far as I know there's no perfect lie dectector short of enough evidence to convict they walk free even if they did it.

Horrible situation. Horrible situation if anyone was convicted falsely as well though

.