Should lotto-winning attempted rapist keep the money?

[osarusan]

Interesting case - from the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7072129.stm)


The Law Lords are considering whether a victim of a rapist who won millions on the lottery can sue him for damages.

Iorworth Hoare, from Leeds, who won £7m after buying a ticket on day release from prison in 2004, attempted to rape the woman, known as Mrs A, in 1988.

In 2005, a High Court judge ruled that a compensation claim by Mrs A was outside the legal six-year limit. The Appeal Court upheld that decision.



I think he should be allowed to keep it. Unfortunately.

[noby]

Surely a compensation claim shouldn't be based on the wealth of the person in question.

[osarusan]

Surely a compensation claim shouldn't be based on the wealth of the person in question.

The issue is that he wasn't sued at the time as he was broke. Now he's not, but there is a six year statute which has expired.

Should there be a time limit?

Should the fact that he's a criminal be an issue?

[Dodge]

Thread title grabbed my attention anyway

[noby]

The issue is that he wasn't sued at the time as he was broke.

I know, and that's what I was replying to. Just because someone is broke shouldn't dissuade you from sueing.
Maybe, in this case, if compensation was sought at the time, then there might be claim to his lotto winnings.

[osarusan]

Maybe, in this case, if compensation was sought at the time, then there might be claim to his lotto winnings.
velly true.

Victim says -

At the Appeal Court hearing, Mrs A said that, before the win, Hoare had no assets.

On that basis, she took the view that it was "neither sensible nor proportionate" to take civil action against him as there was no chance of him satisfying any claim.

[jebus]

Interesting comments from Mrs A, I wonder if her husband will take time away from the Finn Harps forum to give us his thoughts :p

[pete]

If the claim is outside the 6 years then the law should not matter if he was poor or not which is what the High Court ruled. If m' Lords change the law I don't think would be valid now.

[Lim till i die]

Would I be right in thinking that if I was on the dole and I won the lotto my dole would be cut??

So therefore, is the state still burdened with keeping this nouveau rich creature alive or does it foot its own prison costs from now on??


Yes, I know it's a bit of an obscure question but just crossed my mind there :o

[BohsPartisan]

I think its a positive thing. Now that he's loaded he's hardly likely to re-offend. Come on with that money he won't have to!

[kingdom hoop]

Would I be right in thinking that if I was on the dole and I won the lotto my dole would be cut??



I'm not too well up on such matters, or many matters at all some say, but I wouldn't have thought so. Why would you unless you declared yourself self-employed to manage your wealth? Just one of the benefits of the classless society you and I grace with our presence. :)

This has kinda got me thinking though of the way things used to be way back when St. Patrick was sheparding snakes around the place. Under Brehon Law if you were of a more upstanding status (things were strata-ised quite a lot in those times) like say a druid or a chieftain and you committed a wrong you would be more guilty, with correlative punishment, than say a vagabond would be. So to give it some off the wall modern day twist, if you were the prime minister of a country and you wrongly left money resting in your account from a raffle then you would pay more dearly than the local parish priest. I think I kinda like the idea actually! More power = more responsibility = more accountability. Mr Delaney are you listening? :p

[superfrank]

He shouldn't be sued for ompensation now. She didn't do it at the time because he was broke so she shouldn't be allowed to change her mind now that he's rich, imo.

[endabob1]

Would I be right in thinking that if I was on the dole and I won the lotto my dole would be cut??

Not sure about in Ireland but in the UK your dole (job seekeres allowance:rolleyes:) is means tested so if you have cash in your account or an income from your investments you would lose some or all of your benefits.

[cheifo]

I would like to see her sue the ****.

[joeSoap]

I think its a positive thing. Now that he's loaded he's hardly likely to re-offend. Come on with that money he won't have to!What a ridiculous post. Nothing personal here BP but a rapist is a sick evil animal who rapes mainly out of a hatred of humankind in general and also because its a control thing, or a powertrip. Rapists aren't robbers or muggers by and large. They rape. Money wasn't an issue when he raped her and the fact that he has millions in the bank doesn't mean his mind isn't still poisoned. Over 85% of rapists re-offend, or harbour thoughts to. Its because they are sick.

As regards the money, well I think she can forget about that. The law is the law and thats why there is a statute of limitations. If he won the money during the six year claim period then good luck to her, but unfortunately it didn't.