Rapist to have legal costs paid for by his victim

[cookie_365]

Originally Posted by orangebird

I'm absolutely gobsmacked by this - http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0...450220,00.html

Sorry, can't sort the link out properly...

Hang on - that's the correct decision.

She sued him. She lost. Someone has to pay the winner's costs. Her solicitors will have advised her of the implications of taking the case to trial. She chose to carry on.

If someone sues you and the court gives judgement in your favour, why should you have to pay the costs you incurred at the behest of the loser?

It may seem harsh, but if she didn't want to risk the possibility of having to pay his costs she shouldn't have brought the proceedings.

[Graham]

Originally Posted by Bill C

I have said it before and i will say it again. The loony tree hugging liberals do gooders have got control of this country GOD HELP US.

These are the same ones who have got us record numbers of prisoners who are now having to be held in Police cells because our prisons are full...?

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by kronas

he won the millions fair and square.

...and with some of that money that he won fair and square he has bought an artwork featuring a human figure with a bloody crotch.

link

Originally Posted by Graham

These are the same ones who have got us record numbers of prisoners who are now having to be held in Police cells because our prisons are full...?

Go to prove then how much crime there is. Who said crime was falling if we dont have enough jail space. If crime was failing then there would be space in the jails ?.

Originally Posted by Bill C

Go to prove then how much crime there is. Who said crime was falling if we dont have enough jail space. If crime was failing then there would be space in the jails ?.

Sadly, there's an increase in people being jailed because of debts, which contributes to the overall effect. Thought debtor's prisons were a thing of the past!, prison should be for those who are a danger to the public IMO.

[cookie_365]

Originally Posted by Ramrod

...and with some of that money that he won fair and square he has bought an artwork featuring a human figure with a bloody crotch.

link

Well, it's his money to spend on whatever he wants.

He's not a ******* because of his choice of artwork; he's a ******* because of what he did to that woman.

[Pia]

Originally Posted by cookie_365

He's not a ******* because of his choice of artwork; he's a ******* because of what he did to that woman.

It says to me that he is still capable of raping again and again- it's obviously what floats his boat.
If i like music i'd have a figure of a guitar or something, if i get a kick out of raping/attacking/control/hurting, i might enjoy looking at a human figure with blood coming from the crotch.

[etccarmageddon]

basically he raped her and as his financial position has improved she has decided that it's worthwhile now seeking compensation. appears logical and fair to me. shame the law has a time limit which should be revoked/increased so if someone rapes someone then if they in the future have a windfall, they should then pay compensation.

[keithwalton]

Ok just my pov in this dont bite my head off for it ...
She saw that he had won millions of money and wanted some of it (greed) she locked onto this and was determined to get some, ignored advice given to her and was just after the money. The court saw this and made an example of her so other people wont be so foolish and that she wont be able to try again

Ok this is a sensative thing, because this guy lives in the region I do.

However.....

1) He did NOT rape this woman, he was convicted of attempted rape on her
2) she suffered psychological injuries AFTER this happened.
3) since 1989 she had not thought to claim compensation, but because he suddenly gained a few million she decided that getting a share of that would miraculously make things better?

The judge was right, if the time limit is 6 years then the time limit is 6 years, it doesnt matter what happened. The law is written down why should it be different just because this convicted and time served rapist has won the lottery?
If she was allowed to sue him that would make a mockery of the law too as it would be making exceptions to the written law, and would open up a whole can of worms.
This guy as evil as he is has served his time, his debt to society is paid in the eyes of the law, if the system is not carefull they will end up on the wrong side of european law as the guy is being hounded.

To me its all jealousy that he was fortunate to win the lottery, would it even have made headlines if he hadnt? would he have been sued if he hadnt?
No its just sheer greed and jealousy that has motivated this.

__________________________________________________ ______________

Its like the double jeopardy law, A local woman Mrs Anne Ming is trying to overturn the law because of the murder of her daughter Julie hogg by a Mr Billy Dunlop. He was tried and found innocent, but has since confided in a prison officer that he did kill her. Why should the family not be able to receive justice? The answer is as awfull as it is that is the CURRENT LAW.
__________________________________________________ ______________
I understand that the crime ATTEMPTED on the victim of Mr Hoare was a terrible one, however he has received his punishment, he is publically outed as a rapist. Because he now happens to be a millionaire does not excuse people trying to make a mockery of the law, if this woman wanted to sue hiom she should have done so within the permitted 6 years. The Fact she didnt makes me believe that it is money orientated and thats just another name for Greed.

I stand by to be roasted in hell for this but I honestly 100% believe Mr Hoare should now be left alone. And this lady should be content with the criminal injuries compensation she will have received.
What makes her more special than thousands of other women that have been raped or the victim of an attempted rape, should they all have an indefinate period to sue just in case the perpetrator of the crime should make somehting of themselves?

£5000 criminal injuries, doesnt sound much does it, however When I was assaulted unprovoked when I was 13 I was awarded £750, since then and over 6 years after that happened I am now partially sited in one eye directly as a consequence of the assault and am likely to be blind in that eye later in life. I didnt have the option to pay back and go for more money, I have had mental problems associated with the violent attack, and if the guy that did it (and yes I still see him about) won the lottery I wouldnt expect to sue him.

Originally Posted by Bill C

Go to prove then how much crime there is. Who said crime was falling if we dont have enough jail space. If crime was failing then there would be space in the jails ?.

Crime is falling , but sentencing has got tougher.

Originally Posted by andyl

Crime is falling , but sentencing has got tougher.

Is that reported crime or real crime where the average joe does not report it because the police do naff all about it. Unless its a victim then they are after them with all the powers they can muster

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by cookie_365

Well, it's his money to spend on whatever he wants.

He's not a ******* because of his choice of artwork; he's a ******* because of what he did to that woman.

Oh I know that, I just thought I'd point out what kind of person he still is and that he is apparently unrepentant at this time.

Originally Posted by cookie_365

Well, it's his money to spend on whatever he wants.

He should spend some of it paying for his 24 hour security,That he is or was getting at tax payers expense.

Originally Posted by Bill C

Is that reported crime or real crime where the average joe does not report it because the police do naff all about it.

Both indicators are down.