Rapists Footballers Charged

[Isle Of Bute Saint]

Goodwillie and Robertson ordered tp pay £100,000. Guilty they should be behind bars. Who knows maybe that is still to come. 

[DougJamie]

How the hell did they get away with a fine??????

[shull]

Somebody said on another Thread that this Forum is full of intellectuals. 

Fecking bollox 

[shull]

And never a Merging Mod when one is required 

Too busy pulling rank elsewhere. 

[zurich_allan]

How the hell did they get away with a fine??????

It's because it wasn't a criminal prosecution, they were sued through a private civil suit, so the court doesn't have the authority to order a custodial sentence. They weren't found 'guilty' as such, and will not have a criminal conviction against their names. They were found liable to the lower, non-criminal standard of proof of the balance of probabilities.

[Guest TPAFKATS]

Did the victim in this not also receive a record payout for criminal injuries at the time as well?

Goodwillie is an utter reprehensible individual as I keep reminding my Plymouth supporting family.

[Isle Of Bute Saint]

18 hours ago, zurich_allan said:

 

It's because it wasn't a criminal prosecution, they were sued through a private civil suit, so the court doesn't have the authority to order a custodial sentence. They weren't found 'guilty' as such, and will not have a criminal conviction against their names. They were found liable to the lower, non-criminal standard of proof of the balance of probabilities.

 

You would think this would now go to court ? I'm no legal expert can it ?

[zurich_allan]

1 hour ago, Isle Of Bute Saint said:

You would think this would now go to court ? I'm no legal expert can it ?

I honestly haven't looked at the fine detail of the evidence, so honestly not certain. From what I can gather though, the COPFS did initially look at the case but ruled out prosecution. Knowing what I know, I can only imagine that they identified there would be serious problems with corroborating the crucial facts of the case, which would make a criminal conviction unsound. It's the only logical reason I can think of, because if that was the issue it would make (under Scots criminal law) a conviction to the standard of 'beyond reasonable doubt' impossible, but not a finding of liable to the standard of the balance of probabilities.

One thing though, under legislation introduced just over two years ago (the Victims and Witnesses (Scotland) Act 2014), if a decision has been taken by the COPFS not to prosecute, a victim of a crime now has the legal right to require (not just request, but effectively the right to demand) that the COPFS decision is reviewed. IF (and it is a big if) the victim has not already played that card, then in light of the finding of the civil case, they would have the legal right to require the COPFS to take another look at the case.

I'll be very interested to see how it plays out, and when I get a decent amount of time free I'll do some digging to see if I can find out anything else.

[melmac]

Was the point of having the criminal injuries compensation board not supposed to be to try and keep this sort of case from clogging up the courts? Otherwise, you could have a whole raft of people who get away with a crime then being taken to court by a victim and sued for damages. Whether they would ultimately get any money from the person is a totally different question though.

My thoughts are that this victim only took the action she took because she knew Goodwillie & Robertson have / had money, why would she do it otherwise? What fee's will her solicitors and Counsel be taking - half of it?

[HSS]

15 minutes ago, melmac said:

Was the point of having the criminal injuries compensation board not supposed to be to try and keep this sort of case from clogging up the courts? Otherwise, you could have a whole raft of people who get away with a crime then being taken to court by a victim and sued for damages. Whether they would ultimately get any money from the person is a totally different question though.

My thoughts are that this victim only took the action she took because she knew Goodwillie & Robertson have / had money, why would she do it otherwise? What fee's will her solicitors and Counsel be taking - half of it?

Maybe she took her actions because the Scottish Justice system let her down?

[Guest TPAFKATS]

Was the point of having the criminal injuries compensation board not supposed to be to try and keep this sort of case from clogging up the courts? Otherwise, you could have a whole raft of people who get away with a crime then being taken to court by a victim and sued for damages. Whether they would ultimately get any money from the person is a totally different question though.
My thoughts are that this victim only took the action she took because she knew Goodwillie & Robertson have / had money, why would she do it otherwise? What fee's will her solicitors and Counsel be taking - half of it?

She didn't initially go down this route? Suspect it may have been last resort as opposed to financial gain?

[WeeBud]

2 hours ago, melmac said:

Was the point of having the criminal injuries compensation board not supposed to be to try and keep this sort of case from clogging up the courts? Otherwise, you could have a whole raft of people who get away with a crime then being taken to court by a victim and sued for damages. Whether they would ultimately get any money from the person is a totally different question though.

My thoughts are that this victim only took the action she took because she knew Goodwillie & Robertson have / had money, why would she do it otherwise? What fee's will her solicitors and Counsel be taking - half of it?

That could almost sound like judging the victim!!

[melmac]

I'm not condoning what these guys did but they're not guilty of a criminal act so going through a civil court action is really nothing more than for financial gain.

I can only presume that the criminal injuries compensation board knocked her back for compo due to no rape conviction so she had no choice but to go down civil route.

Best of luck to her trying to get the money out of them.

[HSS]

.

Edited January 18, 2017 by HSS
I may have been harsh.

[civilsaint]

5 hours ago, HSS said:

Maybe she took her actions because the Scottish Justice system let her down?

 

Seems about right:

"However I am bitterly disappointed that I was so badly let down by the criminal justice system and was forced to seek a remedy through the civil court."

[melmac]

"Following a judgment this week which saw a woman awarded £100,000 after Lord Armstrong in the Court of Session ruled that two professional footballers raped her, Brian McConnachie QC has said the importance of the case has been “exaggerated” and described the comments of Rape Crisis Scotland as “irresponsible”.

The woman was awarded damages after Lord Armstrong stated in an opinion that “both defenders took advantage of the pursuer when she was vulnerable through an excessive intake of alcohol and, because her cognitive functioning and decision making processes were so impaired, was incapable of giving meaningful consent; and that they each raped her.”

The judge concluded: “Having carefully examined and scrutinised the whole evidence in the case, I find the evidence for the pursuer to be cogent, persuasive and compelling.”

Speaking to Scottish Legal News, Mr McConnachie explained that there were “three important differences from criminal proceedings” in the case.

“Firstly, the standard of proof is significantly lower – namely the balance of probabilities rather than beyond reasonable doubt. If the judge considered it was more likely than not then that was enough,” he said.

He added: “Secondly there is no requirement for corroboration. Accordingly, the evidence of the pursuer alone was sufficient to satisfy the lower standard of proof.

“Thirdly, there is no conviction and neither of the defenders will go to prison. There will be no trial despite the decision of Lord Armstrong.”

Mr McConnachie also cautioned against the view that the case broadens access to justice.

He said: “The comments from Rape Crisis Scotland were in my view somewhat irresponsible. The suggestion seemed to be that somehow this was a landmark ruling which would provide another avenue for people complaining of being raped.

“The case is unique in the modern era in part because the defenders had capital for which they could be sued and from which the expenses of the successful party could be paid.

“That is not the situation most complainers find themselves in. The vast majority of people accused of rape are of modest means or indeed none at all. If the Crown, for good reason, decide not to proceed with a case the idea that complainers will be lining up to raise civil proceedings is, in my opinion ludicrous."

[insaintee]

On 18/01/2017 at 1:47 PM, melmac said:

Was the point of having the criminal injuries compensation board not supposed to be to try and keep this sort of case from clogging up the courts? Otherwise, you could have a whole raft of people who get away with a crime then being taken to court by a victim and sued for damages. Whether they would ultimately get any money from the person is a totally different question though.

My thoughts are that this victim only took the action she took because she knew Goodwillie & Robertson have / had money, why would she do it otherwise? What fee's will her solicitors and Counsel be taking - half of it?

I might be wrong, but I thought criminal injuries compensation was paid by the government when there was no conviction.

[beyond our ken]

On 18 January 2017 at 1:47 PM, melmac said:

Was the point of having the criminal injuries compensation board not supposed to be to try and keep this sort of case from clogging up the courts? Otherwise, you could have a whole raft of people who get away with a crime then being taken to court by a victim and sued for damages. Whether they would ultimately get any money from the person is a totally different question though.

My thoughts are that this victim only took the action she took because she knew Goodwillie & Robertson have / had money, why would she do it otherwise? What fee's will her solicitors and Counsel be taking - half of it?

So when drunk you get carted off in a taxi and get shagged by two people and all you want is money?

Be reminded that the criminal system gave the victim no redress, therefore she took the civil route

 

 

For anyone to even attempt to cast doubt on her motives is sick

This post makes my skin crawl

 

[beyond our ken]

On 18 January 2017 at 4:08 PM, WeeBud said:

That could almost sound like judging the victim!!

Almost? It's an accusation

Edited January 20, 2017 by beyond our ken

[melmac]

Its not an accusation or about judging anybody, its reality. PF says not enough evidence to prove beyond reasonable that she was raped; so she goes to the civil court where the burden of proof is lower and seeking monetary redress of £500k. What other redress was she going to get by going through the civil courts?

Sent from my Q102A-8X using Black and White Army mobile app

[HSS]

Cowdenbeath player David Robertson has decided to retire from football !!!

The guy is only 30.......seems a very young age to give up the game!!!!

[HSS]

Badwillie kicked out the door at Plymouth.

[stlucifer]

On ‎1‎/‎18‎/‎2017 at 5:57 PM, melmac said:

I'm not condoning what these guys did but they're not guilty of a criminal act so going through a civil court action is really nothing more than for financial gain.

I can only presume that the criminal injuries compensation board knocked her back for compo due to no rape conviction so she had no choice but to go down civil route.

Best of luck to her trying to get the money out of them.

By going through the civil court she puts it in the public domain that the two persons in question are indeed rapists. I'm pretty certain she wouldn't have taken such a public, high profile route if the Scottish system had taken them to trial. She probably felt she was basically being told by the COPFS that they doubted the veracity of her claim.

[melmac]

Undoubtedly. Seemed she wanted a public payback more if she knocked back a higher settlement from one of the crossing swordsmen. Is this what's now known as Dundonian Doggin'?

[oaksoft]

7 minutes ago, melmac said:

Undoubtedly. Seemed she wanted a public payback more if she knocked back a higher settlement from one of the crossing swordsmen. Is this what's now known as Dundonian Doggin'?

With respect, you seem more obsessed with this woman's attempt to get some justice than you are about the fact that a double rape took place.

This victim shaming really needs to stop.

This automatic assumption that the victim is a money grabber needs to stop as well.

We are supposed to be a civilised society FFS but our attitudes to woman don't appear to have improved much in the last 40 years.

If those players hadn't raped her she wouldn't have had a case in either court. It is completely irrelevant how she chose to pursue them. She had two approaches and was denied one of them. Was she supposed to go home like a good girl and move on with her life? She got a court to acknowledge she was raped and now both men will have to spend the rest of their lives paying for what they did. End of story.

Edited January 26, 2017 by oaksoft