Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
Original poster

Hurrah for common sense

38 replies

NAB3wishesfor2008 · 30/01/2008 13:38

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]

OP posts:
onesock · 31/01/2008 13:09

He hadn't served his sentence when he won the money, though. He bought the ticket whilst on day release, which means he was still AHMP. This should not be allowed.

I think the idea of 'registering interest/intent to sue' is a good idea. There could be a time frame for this. This woman did try to persue a claim within the 6yr time frame but was advised not to go ahead as he had no assets to claim against.

wannaBe · 31/01/2008 13:19

Him winning the lottery while on day release is a different matter though, he shouldn?t have been allowed to prophet from that lottery win as he was still serving a sentence. But the message this sends to anyone serving a sentence is that they must never make any money when they get out of jail, because someone might be along at any time to take it away from them. So instead of turning their lives around, we will be encouraging offenders to come out of prison and live on benefits because any other money they come into will probably be taken from them when their victims decide to sue.

Original poster
NAB3wishesfor2008 · 31/01/2008 13:24

I disagree WannaBe.

OP posts:
Hopeysgirlwasntbig · 31/01/2008 13:35

I can see both sides. I should imagine in some cases it may take a long time (maybe more than 6 yrs) for the victim to realise the full impact the crime has made on them and their life, I should also imagine that in some cases a woman doesn't have the same confidence and strength she may have had before and this could have a very direct impact on her working career and therefore earnings.

I have a personal experience, I won't go into too much detail, but I was 'affected' by this at the age of 14 and as a result my school career plummeted (previous straight As), causing me to leave school with poor results, this ultimately affected my chances of getting into a professional career. I know that I could study now (ironically I started a University Degree a month before my DH's accident), but it's a very bitter pill to swallow knowing that I should have done SO much better at the time, and was capable of so much more. Unfortunately this person wasn't prosecuted because I wanted to protect my family from upset, BUT if I heard that he'd won the lottery I would be mightily pissed off.

My DH was knocked off his motorbike and suffered terrible injuries and loss of earnings, he's suing the other party, but it won't reach conclusion for years because we don't yet know the full impact it's made on his life.

Could it be argued that the same be true of a victim of violent crime or rape? If someone suffered PTSD they are entitled to sue for monetary compensation.

MAMAZON · 31/01/2008 13:43

I totally understand the motives of the woman in this case. i agree that this man should never have been allowed to profit from teh lottery win and his claim for the money should have been null and void.

BUT its not just this case that is the problem. it is the legal precident it sets for future cases that is the problem.
what Wannabe describes is EXACTLY what will happen if such cases become the norm.

MAMAZON · 31/01/2008 13:45

oh and the victims of crime can claim compensation for PTSD and loss of earning s etc through the criminal injuries board.

this desire to sue the person is just a way of making them pay (possibly again) for the crime they commited. not to get compensation for the loss of earnings or to rectify damages.

Original poster
NAB3wishesfor2008 · 31/01/2008 13:46

If I have understood correctly it is about removing the 6 year time limit for claiming damages which has been unfair previously.

OP posts:
Hopeysgirlwasntbig · 31/01/2008 13:52

'In 1964 the Government established a non departmental public body - the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board (CICB) to administer compensation throughout Great Britain on the basis of common law damages to victims of a crime of violence. The Scheme was introduced to provide an acknowledgement of society's sympathy for such victims.'

Why should the tax payer pay for compensation if the perpetrator of the crime could pay? Surely the person who has carried out the crime should be providing acknowledgement of their sympathy for their victim?

MAMAZON · 31/01/2008 15:02

there is currently a policy that when someone is convicted any earnings or property they cannot show has been legally sourced is confiscated and the profits go jointly towards the police and criminal injuries board.

Its one thing to claim compo at the time or shortly after the crime but to wait 20 years when the perpetrator has built a life for himself (obviously not this case but hypothetcial future cases)is unfair.

Shaniece · 31/01/2008 19:10

So much for what goes around comes around didn't in the rapists case - £7 million . Is he definitely having the money?

Hopeysgirlwasntbig · 31/01/2008 19:46

Mamazon, the policy you mentioned is for people who have made profit from illegal earnings eg drug dealers, pimps, money launderers.

Hopeysgirlwasntbig · 31/01/2008 19:47

not rapists

MAMAZON · 31/01/2008 19:47

i know. i added another paragraph but must have deleted it. (teach me to preview wont it)

New posts on this thread. Refresh page