I am surprised that the woman who sued for 80k the guy who been cleared of rape in court has not been discussed.

[soulbug]

I know the case was based in Scotland...but would this kind of thing have any ramification for those in England?

I always thought a higher court superceeded a lower courts rulings ? such as the Gay Cake situation that has been in the news recently that was pushed all the way to the supreme court for a final ruling.

For those people in Scotland that have found their case not proven, then they must be very worried right now, for those people the rape allegation really is now a never ending nightmare...

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/...of-raping-her/

A woman has been awarded £80,000 in damages in a civil case against a man who had previously been cleared of raping her.

The woman, who cannot be named for legal reasons, sued Stephen Coxen, accusing him of raping her in St Andrews, Fife, after a night out in September 2013.

Coxen, of Bury in Lancashire, denied the charges and in November 2015 a jury acquitted him on a not-proven verdict in a criminal trial.

[Peter1975]

Civil cases are probably more common than we imagine but I would say that generally the defendant would have to be very wealthy for any no win no fee sol to take it on in E&w. Think of Cristiano Ronaldo or bill Cosby paying off their accusers rather than risk a civil judge branding them sex offenders. ( and then their accusers runningnout of money...)

The alarming thought is that this was legal aided but I would imagine the ability of the defendant to pay significant costs and damages would still play a role.

[soulbug]

Civil cases are probably more common than we imagine but I would say that generally the defendant would have to be very wealthy for any no win no fee sol to take it on in E&w. Think of Cristiano Ronaldo or bill Cosby paying off their accusers rather than risk a civil judge branding them sex offenders. ( and then their accusers runningnout of money...)

The alarming thought is that this was legal aided but I would imagine the ability of the defendant to pay significant costs and damages would still play a role.

I read in another article that Coxen was unemployed , of course that does not mean he does not have some form of wealth....but he does appear on the surface of things to be a regular individual of regular means..

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...an-did-student

Miss M is not expected to receive much or any of the £80,000 damages, assuming Coxen is able to pay them. He told the court he was unemployed, and the legal aid board will claw back any payments from Coxen to cover the case’s legal costs, with the remainder only then going to Miss M.

[Peter1975]

In that case then Soulbug, it's probably down to the legal aid funding and possibly the persistence of the complainant. This follows on from the Goodwillie case in Scotland where the complainant was awarded something like 100k without there first being a criminal trial.

Here though, the complainant has pursued this over 5 years and is unlikely to see much if any of the money. The judge found her to be telling the truth and offers some food for thought for those who don't think a jury is qualified to make a decision.

A jury is not tasked with finding a defendant innocent, this will usually be explained in court as " if you think the defendant is probably guilty then you must acquit.... you must be sure.." The jury of course, might also well be thinking the complainant is an obviously lying scoundrel but it is a perverse and rather lamentable result of the courts best attempts to protect the innocent that a NG remains ambiguous and is not any kind of proof of innocence. Making this a little more complicated, it would seem the Scottish jury chose the lesser "not proven" verdict too.

"Probably guilty" is enough for a civil judge to decide in the comps favour being the difference.

It would be interesting to know how many LA funded civil actions there are in Scotland.

I don't think there is any legal aid funding for these types of civil cases in E&W and let's hope there never is.

[soulbug]

In that case then Soulbug, it's probably down to the legal aid funding and possibly the persistence of the complainant. This follows on from the Goodwillie case in Scotland where the complainant was awarded something like 100k without there first being a criminal trial.

Here though, the complainant has pursued this over 5 years and is unlikely to see much if any of the money. The judge found her to be telling the truth and offers some food for thought for those who don't think a jury is qualified to make a decision.

A jury is not tasked with finding a defendant innocent, this will usually be explained in court as " if you think the defendant is probably guilty then you must acquit.... you must be sure.." The jury of course, might also well be thinking the complainant is an obviously lying scoundrel but it is a perverse and rather lamentable result of the courts best attempts to protect the innocent that a NG remains ambiguous and is not any kind of proof of innocence. Making this a little more complicated, it would seem the Scottish jury chose the lesser "not proven" verdict too.

"Probably guilty" is enough for a civil judge to decide in the comps favour being the difference.

It would be interesting to know how many LA funded civil actions there are in Scotland.

I don't think there is any legal aid funding for these types of civil cases in E&W and let's hope there never is.

I wonder if the guy could go back to a higher court to have this particular courts ruling over ruled?

It does seem very unfair to be found unproven by an jury of your peers then for a single lower court judge to find a person gulity, no doubt for those the intimate knowledge of the Scottish legal system it will make sense....but it does seems to defie your laymans logic considering the original Not proven verdict in a higher court.

Baffled.

[Peter1975]

I should think he can appeal but would be considering the legal costs and prospects of winning most probably. Goodwillie decided not to appeal but perhaps had no grounds.

Anyone can bring a civil case, it’s not peculiar to Scotland. You could be a victim of fraud say and as well as be a witness in a criminal trial also sue for the money you have lost. The only unusual thing to note in this case really is the legal aid for the complainant.