|
Rapist Win Lottery, Victim Wants $$$
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Dr. DAS |
So, what do we think about this?
| quote: |
Rape Victim Seeks Lotto Winning Attacker's Fortune In Court
Monday November 5, 2007
CityNews.ca Staff
It's a fascinating case, the kind that sparks debate on talk radio. But it hasn't gotten a lot of attention on this side of the pond. It centres on a man named Iorworth Hoare, who was given a life sentence after being convicted of raping a woman in a park in Leeds, England in 1988.
The victim, known only as "Mrs. A", considered suing her attacker and trying to get a monetary reward for her pain and suffering, but was told Hoare was broke and that she would have received only a moral victory and a large lawyer's bill for her troubles. So she never pursued any damages and was given $10,000 by a Criminal Injuries Compensation Board instead.
That's where this tragic tale should have ended, but it didn't. Life sentences are not what they used to be and Hoare was allowed out on day passes in 2004. On one of those outings, the convicted rapist bought a lottery ticket and to the stunned surprise of the country, he won. The jackpot: about $13 million in Canadian funds.
Hoare is now free on parole, but his victim complains she will forever remain a prisoner of what he did to her - and she's filed suit to get some or all of the cash. But a court has ruled too much time has passed and she's no longer entitled to any compensation. British law allows for just six years to file such a claim and an Appeals Court insists it can't change that.
Still, the victim isn't taking 'no' for an answer and has taken her outrage to the highest court of the land. And that's where things sit, as the justices try and reach a decision on this unusual case. Mrs. A is now 78, and claims she couldn't ask for money he didn't have then and that she should be able to share it now.
The so-called Law Lords are pondering whether the original six year limit is fair and are expected to render their verdict on whether the man the press has dubbed "The Lotto Rapist" can hang on to his fortune or be forced to turn some or all of it over to his victim in the interest of justice.
|
|
|
|
| jon jon |
lol worth a shot imo
tangent:
I've never really understood the logic behind "too much time has passed" thus rendering her claim void. How does that work? Certain crimes are allowed due dates before they can be prosecuted? I'm confused. |
|
|
| malek |
| thats pushing it... so every victim is now entitled to everything the criminal will make in his life? Thats bordering slavery. |
|
|
| zoogla |
| quote: | Originally posted by malek
thats pushing it... so every victim is now entitled to everything the criminal will make in his life? Thats bordering slavery. |
speaking of which, where's my money, bitch? |
|
|
| slingshot |
| quote: | Originally posted by jon jon
lol worth a shot imo
tangent:
I've never really understood the logic behind "too much time has passed" thus rendering her claim void. How does that work? Certain crimes are allowed due dates before they can be prosecuted? I'm confused. |
Statute of Limitations. |
|
|
| jon jon |
| quote: | Originally posted by slingshot
Statute of Limitations. |
but logic Ryan? the logic! ;) |
|
|
| Dr. DAS |
| quote: | Originally posted by jon jon
lol worth a shot imo
tangent:
I've never really understood the logic behind "too much time has passed" thus rendering her claim void. How does that work? Certain crimes are allowed due dates before they can be prosecuted? I'm confused. |
Satute of limitations...
I'd like to see how this pans out. A part of me thinks she should have some recourse here, but what if he won 10 years from now? Could she still come after him?
She could sue him in civil court, like the families of O.J.'s (ahem..wife's murderer's) victims...not that he's actually paying them. |
|
|
| Silky Johnson |
| LoL..."Hoare". |
|
|
| exstasie |
No. The case was settled and he's paying his debt as sentenced. (6 Votes).
He was already sentenced and she chose not to sue him.
Isn't there some sort of Statutes of Limitation on suing? |
|
|
| activate |
| quote: | Originally posted by jon jon
lol worth a shot imo
tangent:
I've never really understood the logic behind "too much time has passed" thus rendering her claim void. How does that work? Certain crimes are allowed due dates before they can be prosecuted? I'm confused. |
statute of limitations.
Doesn't apply to violent crimes.
as far as debts go, statute of limitations also doesn't apply to ontario provincial government debt. |
|
|
| rabbitjoker |
| quote: | Originally posted by jon jon
but logic Ryan? the logic! ;) |
The logic is a combination of:
1) Evidence becomes stale over time.
2) Perpetual liability is not reasonable.
"Reasonable" (as a concept) is used quite a bit in common law. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
What she should have done is pursued the Tort action and obtained a judgement against him, which would have resulted in her having a lien against any future earnings he may have in the amount of the award she received from the court. She chose not to take the time and expense to follow through with this, that was her choice to make, in retrospect it was a poor decision but the one she made nevertheless. I say she's out of luck and rightfully so.
In Canada, each province has a Limitations Act. These acts set deadlines for when one must begin a tort action against a tortfeaser to recover damages they have suffered as a result of the tortfeaser's negligence or malicious act. For example; In Ontario for personal injury cases, one must initiate an action against a tortfeaser within two years from the date at which the cause of loss is discovered by the aggrieved party.... in plain English... you got two years from the date you know you got owned to sue the bastard who caused you to suffer a loss of money or property. The reason for this is because evidence becomes more difficult to secure (both physical and witness) with the passage of time. Ultimately, the legislatures have decided that after a certain amount of time so much evidence is either destroyed or no longer collectable that it is not possible for the alleged tortfeaser to mount a proper defence. This is why they have limits for tort actions. The limits change depending on the type of tort involved. |
|
|
|
|
