SocketRocket
Ryder Cup Winner
Can a civil case prove a law has been broken? If it can and a guilty verdict was passed then I assume a criminal sentence could be passed?
The prince and the sex offender
- Thread starter Farneyman
- Start date
Canary_Yellow
Journeyman Pro
It's a different threshold, so you could have one and not the other, but they're completely separate processes. You'd think a civil case could only happen after the decision has been made not to have a criminal case, otherwise, how could there ever be a fair criminal trial if a jury has already decided the outcome for civil purposes? Dunno if that's the case though, this is the US of A we're dealing with afterall.
It's a different level of proof required so unlikely. It doesn't need to be beyond reasonable doubt, just highly likely. Just saying it was likely does not say for certain that a law was broken.
Even when OJ lost his civil case there was no criminal sentence and that related to murder.
SocketRocket
Ryder Cup Winner
I don't understand the legal position, maybe someone here does have experience of this.
Let's say in the UK a law is broken and the DPP decides it's not worth the cost to take to court. If a citizen then decided they are not happy with this and takes out a private court case and wins, could the person losing be sentenced for breaking a law? It seems logical that this could be the case.
GB72
Money List Winner
Not necessarily in the UK. For a civil action to be a success, the case only needs be proved on the balance of probabilities and that is a far lower burden than proof beyond reasonable doubt for criminal proceedings. Basically the difference between 'it is more likely than not' that he did it and 'it is certainly that he did it'. THe CPS have to look at matters based on whether they can be proved to the higher standard and a ruling in a civil court would do little to change such a judgement. Even if they did, it would not be difficult for a defendent to prove that he could not be tried fairly if the results of a well publicised civil case were all over the papers as it would be hard to find a jury not swayed by those reports.
What you have to look at as well is the tarnishing of an institution that would be inevitable with a long, drawn out, muck raking civil trial with the possibility of members of the royal family being deposed for evidence. Whilst not supporting Andrew in any way shape or form, it is not beyond the realms of possibility that he was, to all intents and purposes, ordered to make it go away by paying up. His reputation would be shot but the stench of the whole thing would not spread as far amongst the whole family.
Junior
Tour Winner
Yes, of course I would. She was 17 not 25. You raise a good point though. She might not even have had any parents or adult role models. As such , it made her a perfect target for the likes of Maxwell and Epstein.
Please don't think I'm condoning anything that happened. I think Andrew, Maxwell and Epstein are scum. She was impressionable and the poor girl got swept away in a lifestyle that appeared lavish (private jets, fancy hotels) but in reality is vulger, seedy and disgusting.
bobmac
Major Champion
GB72
Money List Winner
So he would take one for the team
I actually typed that phrase then thought better of it.
clubchamp98
Journeyman Pro
rulefan
Tour Winner
No. Civil action and criminal prosecution are entirely separate.
And most/many civil cases don't have a jury.
ColchesterFC
Journeyman Pro
"Oh, the grand old Duke of York,
He had 12 million quid,
He gave it to someone he'd never met,
For something he never did..."
Second verse........
Oh, the grand old Duke of York,
He claimed he couldn't sweat,
He gave some girl 12 million quid,
And he hoped we'd all forget
Swinglowandslow
Well-known member
Seems there are a lot on here who don't realise this is a civil case and not a criminal one
Wrong,!
Swinglowandslow
Well-known member
No, not exactly. They are two different levels of proof required.
In your example,you are talking about a private prosecution.
That is not a civil case. That is still a prosecution in a court of criminal law and there would have to be proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
There would still be charges against the criminal law.
In civil cases, allegations are made claiming damages. The allegations ,if refuted , are heard in a civil court. The allegations can be found to be true on a balance of probabilities and if so, damages can be awarded.
If that happens there is still no conviction of a criminal offence, there is no criminal record.
There are rules of evidence strictly adhered to in criminal law cases.
IIRC, those rules do not necessarily apply in civil cases.
It is likely that evidence not allowed in criminal cases may be allowed in civil ones.
SocketRocket
Ryder Cup Winner
I understand the conceptual difference but am asking the question as I have heard of people bringing cases against dangerous drivers for example who they feel didn't receive suitable sentences.
Most of us aren't in the legal profession.
HomerJSimpson
Hall of Famer
I have seen rumours and suggestions, that as senior royal Charles said to Andrew it needed to be done and done now. I am sure there is a grain of truth in that as no-one wants a court case overshadowing the queens platinum celebrations. Also there were concerns on how good he'd have been in court https://news.sky.com/story/prince-a...-gone-to-court-royal-biographer-says-12543306
Whether he did it or not and whether Virgina Giuffre and he did meet will obviously be open to conjecture for many years. I am pleased that a large proportion is going to a charity and the big hope is that the money will go on and do some real good so at least something positive can come out of this mess
Whether he did it or not and whether Virgina Giuffre and he did meet will obviously be open to conjecture for many years. I am pleased that a large proportion is going to a charity and the big hope is that the money will go on and do some real good so at least something positive can come out of this mess
chrisd
Major Champion
I doubt it will be open to conjecture for more than a few moments
Tashyboy
Please don’t ask to see my tatts 👍
This
? It was something that was considered by a family member. Money once more bought suitable sentence.
clubchamp98
Journeyman Pro
I wonder how much scrutiny will happen to see if taxpayers money is involved in any way.
Can see some newspapers not letting this go.
Can see some newspapers not letting this go.
clubchamp98
Journeyman Pro
Yes the photo of them together has never been proved a fake as far as I know.
Foxholer
Blackballed
Can you expand? Were they originally charged with Dangerous Driving? And what was the charge, and consequence, in the Civil (presumably) Court?This
Last edited:
