Victim Of Rapist Lottery Winner Allowed To Sue After 20 Years!

LOTTO RAPIST:

IORWORTH HOARE

This case has been to the House of Lords already and changed the law in the sense that they decided that the shorter 3 year limitation period for bringing claims for personal injury applied to intentional assaults rather than the longer 6 year period generally applicable for other torts.

That was a victory for the rape victim. Why? Because the 3 year period can be extended in exceptional circumstances but the 6 year period cannot.

Whether the period should be extended was referred back to the High Court and its decision was released on the internet today. See the title link.

Mr Justice Coulson has given the Claimant the extension and allowed her action to proceed against her rapist. Instinctively, we probably all feel that he has made the right decision. Why should the undeserving £7 million pound lottery winning rapist not compensate his victim?

Legally, I am less sure. Mr Justice Coulson has done his very best to render his decision appeal proof. I am not sure that it, in fact, is.

Here are his reasons for exercising his discretion in the Claimant's favour:

"... When considering all the circumstances of this case, I have identified a number of factors in the defendant's favour. These include, in particular, the length of the delay, the possible difficulties for the defendant on some aspects of the evidence on causation caused by that delay, and the payment of the £5,000 by the CICB. However, I have concluded that the factors in the claimant's favour are more numerous and of significantly greater weight. They lead me unhesitatingly to conclude that equity requires that the discretion under section 33 be exercised in her favour.

Those factors include in particular:

(a) The nature and seriousness of the underlying tortious wrong;
(b) The fact that one of the consequences of that wrong was the defendant's impecuniosity (because he was unable to earn money by which he could otherwise have met a judgment for damages);
(c) The fact that, prior to his lottery win, the defendant's impecuniosity meant that he was simply not worth pursuing in an action for damages. This was the principal reason for the claimant's delay and one that I consider to be reasonable on the particular facts of this case;
(d) The fact that the claimant acted promptly following the defendant's release from prison and his lottery win:
(e)The fact that the 'clinically significant' second bout of PTSD in 2004 will be capable of being fully addressed by both parties at any trial."

Do these factors fully and necessarily trump the purpose of our limitation legislation; which is to enable potential defendants to know when the risk of a claim against them has expired and they can rest easy?

Well, Mr Hoare certainly has the resources to explore this question on further appeal.

No-one, I think, is going to wish him luck. It emerged after the verdict that this little bastard had "six previous convictions for rape, attempted rape and indecent assault." A less attractive client would be difficult to envisage.

I would not touch him with a barge pole and it can hardly be defamation to describe him, quite simply, as a piece of low life scum. Hopefully, he will spend any part of his fortune that does not go in damages to the Claimant on legal fees!

And, what about his other six proved victims? They should be consulting lawyers now.

Here he is at the time:

And here he is now:

A small picture of a small man. You will need the picture as he lives under aliases.

QUIZ QUESTION: What were they thinking of when they let this man out?

Hang 'em High

Another victim:

SOPHIE LANCASTER

"Sophie, 20, was booted in the face and left in a coma as she tried to protect Robert Maltby, 21, during the “totally unprovoked” attack in a park.

The couple were so badly beaten that medics and police could not tell which was which as they lay side by side unconscious in a pool of blood."

Another victim:

DAVID MORLEY

"Mr Whitehead described lying on the pavement and putting his hands around his head while he was kicked and punched in the ribs and head.

He told the court one of his assailants "seemed to be getting enjoyment" out of it and was smiling or laughing.

He described looking over to see Mr Morley sat against hoardings near the bench.

"A girl ran up and kicked his head like a football. There was only the girl when I saw him. She went over to David. She pulled her foot back and was kicking him like a football very hard to the head two or three times.""

WHAT THE LEGAL PROFESSION IS DOING ABOUT IT:

OUR MAJOR ISSUE: FISHNETS?

"In the case of fishnet tights versus office decorum, the jury was most certainly out yesterday.

A law firm's decision to ban women wearing fishnets to work has left lawyers as neatly divided as a divorcing millionaire's fortune.

The unidentified firm has decreed that female lawyers in fishnets distract male colleagues and look unprofessional".

AND WHAT THE JUDGES ARE DOING:

Mr Justice Coleridge blames youth crime, child abuse, drug addiction and binge-drinking on the "meltdown" of relations between parents and children.

He warns that the collapse of the family unit is a threat to the nation as bad as terrorism, crime, drugs or global warming.

And:

"He will say: "Almost all society's ills can be traced directly to the collapse of family life. We all know it. Examine the background of almost every child in the care system or the youth justice system and you will discover a broken family.

"Ditto the drug addict. Ditto the binge drinker. Ditto those children who are truanting or who cannot behave at school.

"Scratch the surface of these cases and you invariably find a miserable family, overseen by a dysfunctional and fractured parental relationship - or none at all."

Calling for action before it is too late, the judge will say family breakdown is as serious as global warming."

IS HE RIGHT?

I regret having sex with dead body of model: Understatement of the Year? Not Quite! His Barrister Outdid Him.

Mark Dixie Obscured

The Times prints the words before the colon in the title above between inverted commas. That is not strictly accurate. The exchange in court was in fact more chilling:

“I crouched down from behind where the legs were,” he said. “I took full advantage of someone and I should not have done it.”
His counsel Anthony Glass, QC, asked: “Do you mean you had sexual intercourse with her?”
“Yes,” he replied.
Mr Glass asked: “Did you think she was dead or unconscious?”
He replied: “I would not have expected to see anyone dead in that street. I thought she might have passed out or fallen over.”

Remember this next time you come across a disadvanteged female in the streets, blokes. Never mind the ambulance or the police; just get your trousers down. Also, fully brief your counsel on the "that street" defence and the "she might have only been unconscious" defence. If all else fails, get your mitigation in first and tell the court you were a naughty boy and "should not have done it."

This his own counsel questioning him! What is prosecuting counsel going to do with this? Does he/she have to do anything? This is a reservoir dog of a client.

His counsel admitted that this may be "a very unattractive defence."

STARTLING QUIZ QUESTION:

Who is in pole position for having made the biggest understatement of the year: Mr Dixie or his counsel Mr Glass QC?

Mark Dixie Revealed

TOPICS FOR DEBATE:

1) Mark Dixie is innocent of murder unless the jury are persuaded beyond a reasonable doubt that he is in fact guilty.

2) Mark Dixie is a disgusting human being and a reservoir dog on his own admission.

3) Thank goodness for the cab rank principle. Otherwise, Mr Dixie would have little hope of decent representation. (NB: the cab rank principle means that barristers are not allowed to turn down unpleasant cases).