'Lotto rapist' case goes to House of Lords
I am surprised that the House of Lords are even entertaining hearing the case of the woman who was raped and received £5,000 from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, as she tries to claim damages out of time from the rapist who later won the lottery. According to her lawyers "My client and others like her should be able to gain justice through the civil courts and there is clearly an anomaly in the law as it stands that is preventing them from doing so". My understanding is that it is up to Parliament to legislate to amend the 6 year rule in which claims have to be made. I cannot see the HofL ruling in her favour because the politicians had the chance to amend the law and chose not to do so. Whether she should be entitled to more is one issue, whether the law should be changed to allow someone another bite of the cherry is another issue. I cannot see the link between the rapist's criminal conduct and subsequent punishment, and his later good fortune in winning the lottery. I don't think it can be claimed that he is benefiting from his crime. The two acts are totally separate and distanced by over 6 years in time. As no law prevented him from buying a lottery ticket, he has the same rights as anyone else to claim and spend his winnings if his numbers come up.
A mixture of law, politics, autobiography and humour. Once described as "The Devilish Advocate" (Guardian), I do have the ability to provoke a response. Sometimes it comes from someone who uses a thought process, and sometimes from jerks usually associated with the knee.
6 comments:
Hear hear, John, once again you seem to manage where the hysterical mass media fails, to see sound logic where all around are knee jerking. I was also appalled when I saw this bit of news.
It seems as though this woman now thinks she has a claim on any and all future gains of this man. If we consider someone's debt to society is never paid, how can we hope to rehabilitate anyone?
Nicely put, John.
I've followed this case for a couple of years, and I've never even understood why her case has seen the light of day. I cannot imagine a balanced person wanting to trawl through the details of their rape experience again, just for the sake of money.
Without trivialising the rape, I am reminded of visiting a private members' club and being allowed to put money into their fruit machine, but being told to F off when I won a big sum.
If he has done his time then he should be allowed to partake in society. It is similar to your wish for ex-prisoners to be afforded the vote.
Let's face it there are plenty of lotto winners we wouldn't want to have won.
A salient lesson for all: life ain't fair.
Eric the fish - excuse my ignorance, I have been living outside the UK for well over a decade, but do I understand from your comment that EX prisoners cannot vote? I was aware that those serving time are denied the vote, but EX prisoners - is that really so?
richard: Ex-prisoners can vote. The case I took was for convicted prisoners to get the vote. Although the ECtHR decided in my favour, we are still waiting for the government to amend the law to implement it.
THE GUY WAS ON DAY RELEASE FROM PRISON FOR RAPE ETC WASN'T HE....UN-SUPERVISED BY THE SOUNDS OF IT AND BOUGHT A LOTTERY TICKET.
THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD MAKE THE DESPICABLE OINK PAY BACK EVERY PENNY IT COST TO KEEP HIM IN PRISON, AND HE SHOULD BE MADE TO COMPENSATE ALL THE WOMEN HE RAPED.
THEN HE SHOULD BE PUT DOWN.
Post a Comment