Hurrah for common sense

[NAB3wishesfor2008]

A lady who was attacked 20 years ago by a man who later won £7million on the lottery has won her right to sue him for damages. He also tried to rape her.

There used to have a time limit of 6 years for those seeking damages and this is grossly unfair.

This is going to affect a lot of people.

Including me. [ashamed]

This is great news.

I am watching this case with interest.

NAB, I'm so sorry to see you are affected by this.

I am very glad about this decision.

Bet he thought his punishment was over and here it's going to keep on coming!

About time too. Too many victims suffer on for the rest of their lives for the actions of low life scum like him. It's about time that victims are given better justice.

why ashamed nab?

I don't disagree with the decision but am interested to know how it was reached.

Well, I'm not up to date with the ins and outs of it, but it seems a bizarre decision to me.

I'm assuming this man was charged and found guilty, in which guess he has, supposedly, served his punishment.

So how come she gets a share of his lottery winnings? I don't get it.

She is claiming for damages - ie a civil case with the outcome being damages ie money, as opposed to a criminal case ie the prison term is served

sorry - will type that again !

She is claiming for damages - ie a civil case with the outcome being compensation ie money, as opposed to the criminal case brought by the courts resulting in the prison term he has served

Thanks, Whizz.

Well, this seems injudicious to me. The time limit of six years should remain, otherwise it will be open season.

'open season' - what the fuck does that mean?

Oh, donnie, you're so disagreeably rude

If a prison sentence has been served, it seems sensible to set a time limit within which civil action can then be sought.

This particular case is obviously highly unusual, but it certainly sets a curious precedent.

yes , wasn't there something similar in the Stephen Lawrence case?

What would be the point of suing someone in prison - she wouldn't have got anything and it could have actually cost her money. In the future, they should rule that the victim can register a right to sue at an appropriate point in the future.
As for the argument that 'a sentence has been served' I think alot of women take the view that sentences for rapists are far too short and frankly, an insult to the victim.

Yes, I can see the case for victims of child abuse, certainly.

But that's emotive, idling, and whilst we might all agree with it, the law doesn't work that way. It has to be fair.

Allowing victims to wait on the off-chance that their attacker may or may not strike it rich so that they can then sue, does not seem particularly edifying.

I can understand it if criminal proceedings were not brought, but if a person has been convicted of a crime, and he/she has served the sentence according to law, then it seems strange that folk can continue to pursue them limitlessly.

A person either pays for his crime, or he doesn't. Where is the line drawn? Where is the clarity?

Thanks for the patronizing post, dittany. I'm just working it through in my mind, as you do.

And yeah, obviously I've got a thing for convicted serial rapists

I'll leave you to it. Frankly my dear, I can't be arsed.

i don't agree with this new legislation.

it means someone could commit a crime as a youth, be convicted, serve his sentance and be released. he makes a life for himself and is successfull.

he is then sued many years down the line for teh audasity to put his criminal past behind him.

yes i do feel sorry for the woman that was attacked and yes it is terrible karma that this man should win the lottery but, by passing this law it sets precident.

I'm with Mamazon.

I agree too.

The criminal might have paid 'his debt to society' but he has certainly not paid his debt to his victim. By assaulting her she had a case in civil law against him. She obviously couldn't pursue it the time as he had no money - why shouldn't she pursue it when he has? The alternative would be to sue at the time and the court to make an order for the offender to pay as soon as he has any money but not sure that this would work well.
Repeat rapists like him don't deserve 'clarity'. I can see how it could be construed as 'bad law' but if it was made clear that only victims of rape and sexual abuse can claim that would not be opening the flood gates.

I don't get this debt to society. He attacked her, not you or me or anyone else on here. It matters to her that he is severely punished and if she takes have his potto win - good luck to her.

I don?t agree with this at all.

?The criminal might have paid 'his debt to society' but he has certainly not paid his debt to his victim.?. But it is not the victims of criminals that decide the fate of their attackers, it is the justice system. Otherwise you might as well get rid of trial by jury and put the victims in front of their accusers to decide what should happen to them. Surely if a criminal has served his sentence according to the decision of a judge then that should be it. Yes it?s terrible for the victims of abuce/sexual crimes etc but will money really compensate for what they have endured?

This is becoming too much like America where people can take out civil suits even if criminal ones have not served the justice according to the victims. There was talk on the news last night that the biological parents of billy-jo Jenkins were to take out such an action against Sean Jenkins, despite the fact he was actually aquitted of her murder . So even though the man is presumed innocent a civil judge can decide he?s guilty and order him to pay up .

Think it?s actually quite sad that people think that everything can be rectified by money.