Judge rules 2 footballers raped woman in civil case

That too.

routine taking action against rapists in civil courts will just alllow rape apologists to say woman lie about rape for money

KDT

As civil cases don't result in criminal convictions, jail time or joining the sex offenders' register, I think it's very dangerous to say civil cases are the way forward for all rape cases.

Once cases reach court, IIRC, they are found guilty at approx the same proportion as other crimes of violence.

It is a good idea to crowd fund civil rape cases in the way I saw a poster suggest earlier in this thread, because in practice men who have raped can always say they believed they had consent, and no one can prove a man did not believe he had consent. Even when there is blood and bruising he can say it was consensual rough sex.

No one can prove the woman did not consent. Even when she was drunk, it will be said that just lowered her inhibitions and she gave consent; or her memory of the event was fallible. If she has been accompanied home because she was drunk, that is not seen as proof that she was drunk, and so needed help, but that she invited him back/consented in a jury's eyes.

Even if the whole rape had been filmed, and the woman was saying "no" it might arguably be difficult to prove she was not just role playing or he thought she was.

So using the balance of probability is the only way.

I think if woman x was to Persue civil action than the trolling, naming would start again. She would need to change identity again. Karl Massey would employ his millions on private detectives and journalist to harass her as before. Her legal team would need to persuade prosecution witnesses to testify again for 3rd trial.
I don't think a judge in a civil case would care either way about the outcome of criminal case accept maybe look at transcripts for inconsistencies in witness testimony.

Thanks WWA, i had forgotten that about Stephen Lawrence.

Usermuser you and I maybe support the same team. I also share your view.

The victim must be very brave, I'm glad it wasn't in vain.

No - the burden of proof is different. It's on the balance of probabilitis, not beyond reasonable doubt. So a criminal case shouldn't affect the outcome.

Stephen Lawrence's killers were initially found not guilty in the criminal court before the civil court verdict.

Venus, i agree.

I just meant, in general, if someone had been found not guilty in a high profile criminal trial, would the case in a civil court be somehow harder to prove against them.

This case is important, and the woman who brought it incredibly courageous, but I don't think this is the solution for everyone.

Ched Evans' victim has been through 2 trials already, I very much doubt she'd want to face a third. Even just testifying in one trial is tough in ways that it's difficult to understand unless you've done it.

I'd rather more rapists were prosecuted so women didn't have to bring civil claims.

I don't know, Helen. I think on the balance of probabilities it's quite clear that he raped her and she wasn't capable of consent and he didn't seek it adequately anyway. It was only by stretching reasonable doubt to the limits with this new "evidence" of the other men that he was found not guilty. But IANAL either so feel free to ignore my opinion

I too am not convinced trial by jury is much cop, TBH.

A civil case against Ched, currently found not guilty, would be harder to win than a case where it hadn't been to criminal court, IMO.

Not a lawyer but that feels like a possibility.

I think the problem with criminal cases is the jury. The public still think women are at least partly to blame for rape just look at the fawcett report that came out recently. And the public make up juries. In civil cases a single judge however much old fashioned views they hold have to justify their findings in a report that everyone can scruitinise. Plus they don't have to rush to a judgement. Everyone knows who they are unlike a jury. A friend who served on a jury said the people wanted everything done quickly so they could get back to their lives

Unfortunately, if woman X did pursue a civil case, it would feed right into the idea the trolls and rape apologists have that she did it for the money (as ridiculous as that is).

I thought the evidence in the second Ched Evans trial was actually worse for him than the first, and am still gutted it was a Not Guilty verdict. So I'm sure that of the burden of proof was reduced to the balance of probabilities, she'd be successful.

Shame.

I can totally understand why she wouldn't want to go through that again.

It might be better if she took up the offer made by London law firms soon after his wrongful acquittal to represent her free in civil case. But I think biggest hurdle will be having to go through 3rd trial and twitter trolls

Maybe woman x can get legal aid or what about those law firms in London that offered to represent her for free. I think the biggest hurdle will be for her to go through another 3rd trial or be it a civil trial

6 years seems an extremely long time and I imagine that the case was exceedingly expensive.

I agree that funding civil cases would be the ideal, but what figures would we be looking at, and would it be feasible? Women's charities are already notoriously underfunded so I imagine our potential donor pool would be quite small.

Do you think woman x in ched Evans case can sue. Maybe she can use the go fund me money to pay lawyers

Here is the full case report.

Judgment
www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=d22e28a7-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7

Thanks or explaining.

and CPS obviously is failing

Point of detail but the CPS only applies in England and Wales. The Scottish equivalent is the The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS)

On the Nottingham case I can't fathom how the jury came to that decision.

www.nottinghampost.com/university-rowers-cleared-in-whats-app-rape-trial/story-30004437-detail/story.html
Here is a case where two alleged rapists were cleared of rape with a younger, drunk girl they filmed themselves having sex with. They posted on this film on Whats App. The first jury could not reach a verdict. The second in December found them not guilty.

It is shocking, and CPS obviously is failing. But it is a victory too in that the judge was able to give a verdict that she had been raped even though she could not remember. This could certainly give others in the future to give a guilty verdict in similar cases.Here is a link,
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/17/court-rules-david-goodwillie-former-teammate-rapists/

There was another case this week where a Durham student sexually assaulted a girl when she was asleep. www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/15023775.Durham_University_student_jailed_for_sexual_assaults_on__vulnerable__female_undergraduate/
He was found guilty even though she had invited him back with her. The boy admitted it and pleaded guilty - he almost certainly have got away with it with a good lawyer as so many others appear to have done. His admission of guilt may help make other people more aware in the future that yes, men do assault/rape drunk girls when they are asleep/without their permission.