MoD compensation claim defeated
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: 250 ft agl
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"An RAF corporal from Northern Ireland was convicted at Lincoln Crown Court in 2002 of raping the woman but this was quashed on appeal in January 2003.
The corporal was subsequently ordered to pay her £200,000 for "trespass to the person" after it was ruled he had non-consensual sex with her. "
How exactly is that not rape?!
The corporal was subsequently ordered to pay her £200,000 for "trespass to the person" after it was ruled he had non-consensual sex with her. "
How exactly is that not rape?!
Red On, Green On
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Between the woods and the water
Age: 24
Posts: 6,487
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
You also have to wonder how the Corporal would manage to pay £200,000 just like that 
Last edited by airborne_artist; 13th Dec 2007 at 10:10. Reason: typo
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: ooop north
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Without knowing the facts of the case, it sounds as if the guy was effectively found not guilty in a criminal court ( appeal court as conviction was quashed), possibly on a legal technicality? The lawyers then took the case to civil court and a ruling was made in the ladies favour. I have never heard of a criminal court awarding 200k to a victim.. they just punish the convicted. So this case against the MOD was the third time that this case was heard in a court, not including the appeal. The victims families did a similat thing when OJ Simpson was found not guilty.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Lincs, UK
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"...have to wonder how the Corporal would manage to pay £200,000 just like that"
Chances are that he won't. Which is probably why the lady in question first tried to sue the MoD citing a duty of care: because the MoD has got money. She now faces the uphill struggle of extracting the cash from the Corporal, a task that may never be completed.
Chances are that he won't. Which is probably why the lady in question first tried to sue the MoD citing a duty of care: because the MoD has got money. She now faces the uphill struggle of extracting the cash from the Corporal, a task that may never be completed.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Area 51
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The burden of proof in a criminal trial is 'beyond reasonable doubt', in a civil case it's 'on the balance of probabilities'. By way of illustration this roughly equates in percentage terms to 99.9% guilty (criminal), 50.1% liable (civil).
Accordingly it is quite possible to be found not guilty in a criminal matter but liable in a civil court. The most obvious example is after a car accident. The CPS may be unable to prove the offence of Dangerous Driving but a victim of the accident will in all probablity still get compensation.
I find it curious that having already been awarded damages against the individual that she also went after the MOD, both because you can't be compensated for the same thing twice and because you are not entitled to litigate more than once for damages arising from the same set of facts.
Accordingly it is quite possible to be found not guilty in a criminal matter but liable in a civil court. The most obvious example is after a car accident. The CPS may be unable to prove the offence of Dangerous Driving but a victim of the accident will in all probablity still get compensation.
I find it curious that having already been awarded damages against the individual that she also went after the MOD, both because you can't be compensated for the same thing twice and because you are not entitled to litigate more than once for damages arising from the same set of facts.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: ecosse
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And absolutely nothing to do with Legal Aid, No fee No Pay Ambulance chasers then?
No! Thought not!
Hey! Watch that crack in the pavement - oh, that's gotta hurt!
About time these legalised crooks were brought to book!
No! Thought not!
Hey! Watch that crack in the pavement - oh, that's gotta hurt!
About time these legalised crooks were brought to book!
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Reggie Mental, I agree in principle but surely the degree of certainty in a criminal court is less than 99.9%.
In a majority verdict a number of jurors can disagree can they not? That would reduce the percentage?
In a majority verdict a number of jurors can disagree can they not? That would reduce the percentage?
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Area 51
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Buoy15 - I dare say neither of us know the full facts of the case (I don't), but if she was awarded £200k then the court clearly considered she'd been the victim of a serious assault. I doubt very much that she would have got Legal Aid although the Corporal, as a Defendant, may have done if he qualified on financial grounds.
If it were you daughter, wife or friend perhaps you'd take a different view. Or perhaps you subscribe to the view that she should have just shut up and done nothing? This has nothing to do with ambulance chasers whatsoever.
As for the burden of proof, the jurors in the majority would have to consider the defendant 99.9% guilty.
If it were you daughter, wife or friend perhaps you'd take a different view. Or perhaps you subscribe to the view that she should have just shut up and done nothing? This has nothing to do with ambulance chasers whatsoever.
As for the burden of proof, the jurors in the majority would have to consider the defendant 99.9% guilty.
