Judge rules 2 footballers raped woman in civil case

[PlectrumElectrum]

Guardian article here

The case was never prosecuted, apparently due to lack of evidence.

In terms of the evidence from the men concerned I think it's worth highlighting the judge's comments 'The judge said he did not find Goodwillie’s evidence to be persuasive and did not find Robertson credible or reliable' - in contrast with his view of the victim - “I find the evidence for the pursuer to be cogent, persuasive and compelling. In the result, therefore, I find that … both defenders took advantage of the pursuer when she was vulnerable'

Shocking that the victim had to resort to pursuing a civil case to see some form of justice (albeit neither man will serve time unless criminal charges now follow - not sure on the legal stance there) but thought it worth highlighting this.

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

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

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 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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Thanks WWA, i had forgotten that about Stephen Lawrence.

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.

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.

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.

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

That too.