Convicted rapist who later won lotto can be sued

[politicaldonations]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/engl ... 217251.stm

What do ya think of this, is law similar in Ireland? How long after a criminal commits a crime and is released should he/she be liable to being sued ? I think its a strange decision that 20 years after a crime(heinous and all) that a now released convict can be sued for their subsequent financial gains. This attempts to put a price on crimes, doesnt allow criminals move on from their past, leaves past hanging over future actions/income etc. What about all the other victims whose abusers will never have assets to sue over making the criminal justice system a bit of a lottery in itself. Better to have stronger more effectivement punishment/justice for convicts and better state support /compo for victims.

[The Collective.]

He was in prison for awhile. Thats enough.

[EvotingMachine0197]

I thought we had an expiry date - I cant' remember the legal term- for civil actions. But even if the guy never won the lotto, he is still open to civil action is he not ? So, knowing he is now loaded, it makes for a good target. I would sue him.
Bear in mind that most rape victims' only compensation is for the perpetrator to be imprisoned for a few lousy years.

[CookieMonster]

I don't agree with this. He was given a custodial sentence which he completed and was released. How can the court come back and say that he how has to pay compensation to the victims after he has already completed his sentence as handed down at the time of the trial?

[odie1kanobe]

A dumb decision that defies logic BUT the Law Lords haven't grasped that in setting the precedent any kid who has been abused by social workers or in care homes (there are many) can sue and statute of limitations won't apply.

[ivnryn]

I don't agree with this. He was given a custodial sentence which he completed and was released. How can the court come back and say that he how has to pay compensation to the victims after he has already completed his sentence as handed down at the time of the trial?

The criminal and the civil cases are not necessarily the same. The woman didn't actually sue him originally as he had no money.

[CookieMonster]

I don't agree with this. He was given a custodial sentence which he completed and was released. How can the court come back and say that he how has to pay compensation to the victims after he has already completed his sentence as handed down at the time of the trial?

The criminal and the civil cases are not necessarily the same. The woman didn't actually sue him originally as he had no money.

So this case is a civil case for compensation and not part of the original criminal case where he was given a prison sentence and she was paid €5000 from the criminal injuries compensation board? In that's the case it makes it a little different.
But then they've abandoned the statute if limitations (or does one actually exist, is it just implied) of six years, setting a precident - as was mentioned above - for compensation cases left right and centre. It still doesn't seem right to me.