'Scottish civil court rules that acquitted man did rape student'

[Nearly Sane]

Apart from being a tragedy, no matter what actually happened, this is extraordinary. So far the sheriff's judgement isn't available on line but it will be interesting to read.


https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/oct/05/scottish-civil-court-rules-that-acquitted-man-did-student

[Humph Warden Bennett]

Apart from being a tragedy, no matter what actually happened, this is extraordinary. So far the sheriff's judgement isn't available on line but it will be interesting to read.


https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/oct/05/scottish-civil-court-rules-that-acquitted-man-did-student

Agreed. I have a limited knowledge of the Scottish legal system, perhaps one of our Scottish posters can give us some idea of the legal situation here?

[Sebastian Toe]

Similar to OJ in the States?
Not guilty in the big court.
Sued successfully in civil action.
So both guilty and not guilty of the same crime!

[jeremyp]

Apart from being a tragedy, no matter what actually happened, this is extraordinary. So far the sheriff's judgement isn't available on line but it will be interesting to read.


https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/oct/05/scottish-civil-court-rules-that-acquitted-man-did-student

There’s nothing extraordinary about it at all. The standards of evidence in a civil case are not as high as those in a criminal case.

Furthermore, as I understand it “not proven” in Scottish law sort of means “yes, he obviously did it but the evidence isn’t quite good enough for a conviction”.

The fact that a civil suit needs a lower standard of proof seems to be fairly univerasal. As Seb says, OJ Simpson was acquitted in the criminal court but lost the civil suit.

What is extraordinary is that the victim had both the resources and the courage to do this. She’s had to relive the ordeal twice and though she has been financially rewarded, the man who did this is still out and about.

[Nearly Sane]

There’s nothing extraordinary about it at all. The standards of evidence in a civil case are not as high as those in a criminal case.

Furthermore, as I understand it “not proven” in Scottish law sort of means “yes, he obviously did it but the evidence isn’t quite good enough for a conviction”.

The fact that a civil suit needs a lower standard of proof seems to be fairly univerasal. As Seb says, OJ Simpson was acquitted in the criminal court but lost the civil suit.

What is extraordinary is that the victim had both the resources and the courage to do this. She’s had to relive the ordeal twice and though she has been financially rewarded, the man who did this is still out and about.

No, it is extraordinary because to quote the article

'It was the first time in recent Scottish legal history that someone cleared in a criminal trial had been subsequently sued.'

and again

'Due to its legal significance, the case was paid for by the Scottish Legal Aid Board through a special fund set up to support cases of gender-based violence, and was closely watched by women’s rights groups, lawyers and other potential litigants'

In addition to that a sheriff writing an 84 page judgement is a reflection of the impact this will have and about making sure that the decision, being extraordinary, is fully justified,

As to the 'bastard verdict', in general cases you may well be right, but I would argue that in the case of rape and sexual assault, given the low level of successful prosecutions, never mind the low level of prosecutions in relation to allegations, it's also in part to do with saying to alleged victims that their accusations are not seen as lies. The issue here is that rape and sexual assault are in general hard cases to prove but particularly so given the need for corroboration in Scottish Law. There was a move to get rid of that need but that was halted by the Scottish govt in 2015, and I haven't seen any new proposals about it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corroboration_in_Scots_law

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-32398065