Civil court finds against soldier accused of rape

[NothingOnTellyAgain]

BBC today

There have been a couple of these recently I think.

Women who have been unsuccesful with prosecution, having success in the civil courts.

The burden of proof is different -

I believe in criminal court it is "beyond any reasonable doubt" whereas in civil court it is "on the balance of probailities".

We are all aware of the issues around prosecuting rape I'm sure - and this has been raised as an option. There are pros and cons -

On the one hand rape is a serious crime and moving towards civil cases rather than criminal serves to "downgrade" it
On the other hand women (and children and probably men as well) rarely see justice done through the criminal system, it's a horrendous process, and at least this is something

As a general principle what do you think? Is this a pragmatic option that women should maybe start doing more if they feel up to it?

I am very very pleased for the woman in the story that she has seen her attacker held to account and I hope it gives her some satisfaction. I also admire her strength for pursuing this after a not proven verdict in the criminal court.

I don't see this as a move towards civil courts only, because this had already been through the criminal courts, with a 'not proven' verdict. Were the other case (which you allude to) not also tried in a criminal court?

My question is whether the scale of compensation awarded via a civil case is much the same as that awarded from the Criminal Injusties Board (is that the right name?) after a guilty verdict in the criminal courts.

The others were tried as well in criminal courts as well and found not guilty / not proven. Only a couple I think that I remember.

The compensation is by the by and the women who have done this previously said it wasn't about money but to try and get some kind of justice. The big difference is that the man has no criminal record and doesn't go to prison, have to sign sex offenders register etc.

The criminal compensation scheme I think gives much smaller sums and with sex offences will often refuse to pay even if there is a guilty verdict and even when the victims are children - there was a big hooha about it recently.

They said that the cases had been "proven in court but not in fact" so in order to save a few quid were basically saying that the victims were STILL not believed, and that the criminal justice system finds men guilty when they are not. Appalling situation.

Cases fail because 'reasonable doubt' is raised around the woman's lack of consent.

We were supposed to get away from victim blaming. While the most blatant forms of victim blaming have gone ("look what she was wearing, the tramp!" or, "she's a prostitute and this is her job, of course she consented") the Defence finds more subtle ways of demolishing a witnesses credibility.

They want to examine the witnesses phone - something that she might object to so strongly that she would prefer to walk away. They trawl through her social media. The prosecution has to disclose everything they find in the course of the investigation - including the CCTV images of the witness with her arms around the accused outside a club, laughing and happily walking off with him. And so on and so on.

What woman can withstand such scrutiny over stuff that isn't relevant? It only succeeds in witnesses refusing to go on, or losing it in the witness box.

In the case in question, the witness had already gone through the ordeal of investigation, evidence disclosure and court. I don't imagine that a civil court would accept jurisdiction if there had been no criminal prosecution.

"the Defence finds more subtle ways of demolishing a witnesses credibility."

In a rape trial, more often than not the victim is on trial, not the accused.

I think the civil courts offer another route to justice - even if it's much diluted. At least that way the victim's suffering is acknowledged.

When I was talking to someone who works with rape victims she said convictions would go up if, before every single rape case, the jury were given a presentation on myths about rape, including ensuring they were told that screaming and fighting are the least likely response from a rape victim. She said freezing was by far the most common reaction and that if juries understood that it would increase convictions.

Seems to me that a set presentation on what is known about rape, rapists and victims - the same for all cases - backed with the most solid research, would dispel myths while not prejudicing the defendant.

The other high profile case I recall was against 2 footballers, one high profile (in Scotland at least). In that case, the procurator fiscal refused to prosecute the footballers, so she took out the civil case and won.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-38651041

I'm torn on this too, because it's still a difficult route to go down, especially funding it in the 1st place. I'm not sure how the funding works in these cases, but that alone might well be another barrier for women to try and seek some kind of justice.

It would be preferable if the criminal justice system was overhauled to better deal with rape cases in the 1st place.

If a criminal court says not guilty and a civil court finds for the victim, does anyone know whether that means we can refer to the rapist as a rapist? Whether its a way for people to be able to name the crime when the criminal court cant convict...

No idea terry.

Logically, yes.

A former Scotland international footballer and his ex-teammate have been ruled to be rapists and ordered to pay £100,000 damages despite never facing a criminal trial

From the BBC website. I'm not aware of either man suing the BBC for defamation.

Obviously loosing a civil action would not be disclosed in a DBS check but , yes, it seems to be acceptable usage.

Sturdy totally agree.

Also if there are more civil cases where men who are not guitly / not proven (scotland) are found guilty, it might start to make people take a different attitude to all this stuff. Less women are all liars, ruining good mens lives stuff. Less oh not guilty means innocent. More questions around why the current criminal process is not finding these men guilty when a different court says yes they are.

Re funding, it would be funded in the same way as any other court action- either by the pursuer or by legal aid.

Denise Clair's, the pursuer in the Scottish footballer case, solicitor was Cameron Fyffe. He has since been struck off as a solicitor and has set up Cameron Fyffe Claims calling himself a "lawyer"- which is a meaningless term but one which the Law Society can't stop him using.

www.cameronfyfeclaims.co.uk/

Btw, his being struck off had nothing to do with the Denise Clair case. He was struck off for professional misconduct and breach of accounting rules.