Erm, if I were her I'd sue her lawyer. The law was pretty clear, after all, you've got six years to sue for damages. You can argue whether that's reasonable, but taking a case self-evidently unwinnable in law to court and inevitably losing rather suggests that she was badly advised. She did, after all, have six years in which to legitimately sue, but didn't.
What do you suggest should happen, that people taking obviously opportunist legal action should be let off paying for it when it fails? Perhaps you'd like to pay me to sue you? Lawyers who advise people to bring cases like this are in the wrong, the rapist, in this case, isn't.
Quote:
|
Further proof that the legal system in this country is absolutely ridiculous.
|
Ah, someone else who really doesn't know much about the legal system in this country. Ridiculous would have been if the court had overturned the will of Parliament (who presumably set the six year limit) because the case made the tabloids. You can either live by the law (which, in striving to be fair to everyone, can always be selectively presented as being fair to the undeserving) or campaign to have it replaced by emotion, anger and knee-jerk reaction to tabloid outrage. I'm for the former.