Rigby killer sues....

[Deleted member 15344]

There are plenty of no brainers that should be put straight to bed, I don't wish to discuss the example you've given, well because..

Killing someone because they killed someone

Does two wrong make a right ?

We are a civilised country with laws and rules and if people don't abide by those then they are subject to punishments we have within our laws - taking someone's life as a punishment is no better IMO than taking someone's as a crime.

The Guilford 4 were wrong convicted due to corrupt police and falsifying evidence. They were rightly released were the true facts became known.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

As the law stands, he is fully entitled to sue. The law is right, there must a recourse to test the system if a failing is perceived. In his particular case, he hasn't got a leg to stand on. A pity there isn't an opportunity for the law to counter-sue for a frivolous case.

I really don't understand how civil cases can be sought after there is found to be nothing during a criminal case etc

In this particular case all the officers involved were cleared of wrong doing so what difference will a civil case see ?

 

[Deleted member 16999]

I really don't understand how civil cases can be sought after there is found to be nothing during a criminal case etc

In this particular case all the officers involved were cleared of wrong doing so what difference will a civil case see ?

Not to fall out or heated argument, here goes Phil, in a nutshell
There was an altercation involving him and 5 Prison Officers, his head hit a window and he lost 2 teeth, he claimed assault, they claimed he got violent and were trying to control him, Prison Officers suspended and criminal investigation took place, Police investigated and brought no charges.
He is now sueing the Prison Service for compensation for injuries received.
I totally agree with the right to a fair trial, but in a civil case no criminal charges are brought and I think there is no Jury. I also agree with Hobbit with the right to bring a Civil case to court, my issue for him and anybody in Jail is, we the tax payer are footing the bill to defend the action, pay the wages of the court staff and the compensation if he wins,

 

[Deleted member 16999]

As the law stands, he is fully entitled to sue. The law is right, there must a recourse to test the system if a failing is perceived. In his particular case, he hasn't got a leg to stand on. A pity there isn't an opportunity for the law to counter-sue for a frivolous case.

There has been cases recently were prisoners who lied in court when sueing the Prison Service have been done for Perjury and received further custodial sentenced.

 

[Doon frae Troon]

Some of you should watch Bridge of Spies that is out at the moment - a film based (albeit loosely at times) on a US lawyer who represented a Soviet Spy, much to his own vilification from the general public.

Good example, excellent film if you can stay with it.
A bit like Shawshank in testing the staying/observation powers.
I was old enough to remember the Powers plane being shot down and the uncertainty of those times.

 

[Foxholer]

I really don't understand how civil cases can be sought after there is found to be nothing during a criminal case etc

In this particular case all the officers involved were cleared of wrong doing so what difference will a civil case see ?

Because the burden of proof in criminal cases is 'beyond reasonable doubt', but civil cases are 'only' 'on the balance of probabilities'.

In this case, the officers were cleared of criminal wrong doing, but may still be found guilty in a civil case!

 

[Hobbit]

I really don't understand how civil cases can be sought after there is found to be nothing during a criminal case etc

In this particular case all the officers involved were cleared of wrong doing so what difference will a civil case see ?

The burden to prove isn't quite so high. Its wrong, but that's what it is.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

The burden to prove isn't quite so high. Its wrong, but that's what it is.

Yeah just doesn't seem right at all.

 

[HomerJSimpson]

Because the burden of proof in criminal cases is 'beyond reasonable doubt', but civil cases are 'only' 'on the balance of probabilities'.

In this case, the officers were cleared of criminal wrong doing, but may still be found guilty in a civil case!

Which seems totally bonkers. If there was no crime committed what balance of probability is there left to establish. He got violent, got injured being restrained. More taxpayer money wasted. We should be able to counter-sue