adamntg Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 53 minutes ago, aaid said: That said, the criminal case was never put before a court as one person - the PF - decided that there wasn't a chance of getting a conviction, presumably that test itself is one that is on the "balance of probabilities". The judge in the civil case heard the evidence and felt differently. Not necessarily. The judge in the civil case may have also felt that there was insufficient evidence to convict beyond reasonable doubt, but he was only asked to rule on the balance of probabilities. The Fiscal has decided, based on the lack of evidence admissible in a criminal trial, that seeking a conviction was not in the public interest as it would likely fail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoobydoo Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 11 minutes ago, adamntg said: Not necessarily. The judge in the civil case may have also felt that there was insufficient evidence to convict beyond reasonable doubt, but he was only asked to rule on the balance of probabilities. The Fiscal has decided, based on the lack of evidence admissible in a criminal trial, that seeking a conviction was not in the public interest as it would likely fail. Asked by whom, the plaintiff's lawyer? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaid Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 6 minutes ago, scoobydoo said: Would that not be "unlikely to get a conviction due to reasonable doubt" as it is a criminal case? Do you think that David Goodwillie could face a criminal trial now if the fiscal had another look? Point 1. Yes, but what happens is that the PF makes a call based on the "balance of probabilities" as to whether there would be a conviction due to reasonable doubt. I accept that my original post might not have been clear but the point I was trying to make is that the PF makes a call on whether or not there is likely to be a successful prosecution, not whether the accused is guilty or not. These two things are very different. Point 2. I doubt it just based on the Civil case but if there were further, new, evidence then it's not outwith the realms of possibility that the PF may look to reopen the case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoobydoo Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 (edited) 5 minutes ago, aaid said: Point 1. Yes, but what happens is that the PF makes a call based on the "balance of probabilities" as to whether there would be a conviction due to reasonable doubt. I accept that my original post might not have been clear but the point I was trying to make is that the PF makes a call on whether or not there is likely to be a successful prosecution, not whether the accused is guilty or not. These two things are very different. Point 2. I doubt it just based on the Civil case but if there were further, new, evidence then it's not outwith the realms of possibility that the PF may look to reopen the case. cheers. No more questions your honour Edited January 18, 2017 by scoobydoo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TDYER63 Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 Seems he is considering an appeal. https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/452087/ex-scotland-ace-david-goodwillie-says-hes-devastated-by-judges-ruling-hes-a-rapist-and-is-ready-to-appeal/amp/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaid Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 17 minutes ago, adamntg said: Not necessarily. The judge in the civil case may have also felt that there was insufficient evidence to convict beyond reasonable doubt, but he was only asked to rule on the balance of probabilities. The Fiscal has decided, based on the lack of evidence admissible in a criminal trial, that seeking a conviction was not in the public interest as it would likely fail. See my response above. What is particularly interesting in this case is for what specific reasons did the PF have in the first place for deciding whether or not a conviction would be obtained and so dropping the case. We've no idea and can only speculate but on the surface it would seem a fairly straightforward case on one person's word against another. Goodwillie and Robertson don't deny they had sex with her but insisted it was consensual. The victim asserted that she hadn't given consent. If it's the case that the PF didn't think the victim would have been a credible witness, then given the judge's findings, that looks like it was a mistake. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Debian Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 40 minutes ago, Reevesy said: Thanks Ctrl right click actually Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adamntg Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 20 minutes ago, scoobydoo said: Asked by whom, the plaintiff's lawyer? What do you mean? The woman has brought a civil case against Goodwillie and Robertson, the judge will hear evidence and rule on the case. Am I misunderstanding the question? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adamntg Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 13 minutes ago, aaid said: See my response above. What is particularly interesting in this case is for what specific reasons did the PF have in the first place for deciding whether or not a conviction would be obtained and so dropping the case. We've no idea and can only speculate but on the surface it would seem a fairly straightforward case on one person's word against another. Goodwillie and Robertson don't deny they had sex with her but insisted it was consensual. The victim asserted that she hadn't given consent. If it's the case that the PF didn't think the victim would have been a credible witness, then given the judge's findings, that looks like it was a mistake. Well, if the PF didn't feel there was appropriate corroboration of her claims then, yes, it would be one person's word against the other and in that case the judge doesn't have any option but to dismiss the case. It sounds to me as though the evidence of door staff etc as to her state of inebriation could be pretty strong corroboration, as they are accepting they had sex. I'm not a judge though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoobydoo Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 11 minutes ago, adamntg said: What do you mean? The woman has brought a civil case against Goodwillie and Robertson, the judge will hear evidence and rule on the case. Am I misunderstanding the question? You wrote he is 'asked'. I was wondering by whom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaid Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 1 minute ago, adamntg said: Well, if the PF didn't feel there was appropriate corroboration of her claims then, yes, it would be one person's word against the other and in that case the judge doesn't have any option but to dismiss the case. It sounds to me as though the evidence of door staff etc as to her state of inebriation could be pretty strong corroboration, as they are accepting they had sex. I'm not a judge though. Absolutely, we are all speculating. Making an assumption that all the evidence that was available to the PF back in 2011 was led in the civil case, i.e. no new evidence was brought to light that might have influenced the PF's original decision then even recognising the different levels of proof required in a civil and criminal trial, it does call into question the original decision. That's not to say that a jury would have found him guilty, or indeed that even the same judge, applying the criteria of "beyond reasonable doubt" would have reached the same conclusion but it surely suggests that there was a reasonable chance of a conviction. Pretty embarrassing for the PF and/or the Crown Office, IMHO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaid Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 (edited) 4 minutes ago, scoobydoo said: You wrote he is 'asked'. I was wondering by whom. "Asked" by the law, not by anyone specifically. Edited January 18, 2017 by aaid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoobydoo Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 11 minutes ago, adamntg said: Well, if the PF didn't feel there was appropriate corroboration of her claims then, yes, it would be one person's word against the other and in that case the judge doesn't have any option but to dismiss the case. It sounds to me as though the evidence of door staff etc as to her state of inebriation could be pretty strong corroboration, as they are accepting they had sex. I'm not a judge though. Does that not leaving a gaping hole in Law though if you can be convicted (if that's the word) on the balance of probabilities against being convicted on the grounds of beyond reasonable doubt? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaid Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 34 minutes ago, TDYER63 said: Seems he is considering an appeal. https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/452087/ex-scotland-ace-david-goodwillie-says-hes-devastated-by-judges-ruling-hes-a-rapist-and-is-ready-to-appeal/amp/ Well he would do, wouldn't he. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoobydoo Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 1 minute ago, aaid said: "Asked" by the law, not by anyone specifically. Thanks. Obviously I haven't spent much time in court. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaid Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 3 minutes ago, scoobydoo said: Does that not leaving a gaping hole in Law though if you can be convicted (if that's the word) on the balance of probabilities against being convicted on the grounds of beyond reasonable doubt? Criminal Law and Civil Law are two completely different things. There's a good summary of the differences here. http://www.inbrief.co.uk/legal-system/difference-between-civil-criminal-law/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoobydoo Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 4 minutes ago, aaid said: Pretty embarrassing for the PF and/or the Crown Office, IMHO. M̶a̶y̶b̶e̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶r̶e̶ ̶w̶a̶s̶ ̶s̶t̶i̶l̶l̶ ̶a̶ ̶c̶h̶a̶n̶c̶e̶ ̶h̶e̶ ̶w̶o̶u̶l̶d̶ ̶s̶i̶g̶n̶ ̶f̶o̶r̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶r̶a̶n̶g̶e̶r̶s̶.̶ I was thinking the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoobydoo Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 6 minutes ago, aaid said: Criminal Law and Civil Law are two completely different things. There's a good summary of the differences here. http://www.inbrief.co.uk/legal-system/difference-between-civil-criminal-law/ As a layman it doesn't seem possible that something as serious as rape and culpable homocide can be seen in criminal and/ or civil Law terms, and especially civil Law. I guess it never enters the realms of everyday life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TDYER63 Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 9 minutes ago, aaid said: Well he would do, wouldn't he. Maybe, maybe not. Ive no idea what his chances are of overturning it. Is a civil conviction seen as less serious than a criminal conviction? If so he may just have accepted it rather than drag it on further. Can one of them appeal and the other not, or does it have to be joint ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoobydoo Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 (edited) 9 minutes ago, TDYER63 said: Maybe, maybe not. Ive no idea what his chances are of overturning it. Is a civil conviction seen as less serious than a criminal conviction? If so he may just have accepted it rather than drag it on further. Can one of them appeal and the other not, or does it have to be joint ? He will probably now be remembered as a rapist, and especially by those berate who him, you know what football fans are like. Just below paedophile and above agent on the list. I'd be trying to get myself down the list to a footballer who didn't quite make it ASAP. Edited January 18, 2017 by scoobydoo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adamntg Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 (edited) 44 minutes ago, scoobydoo said: Does that not leaving a gaping hole in Law though if you can be convicted (if that's the word) on the balance of probabilities against being convicted on the grounds of beyond reasonable doubt? Not really. Civil court rules between two parties - "beyond reasonable doubt" wouldn't work in those circumstances - someone always wins in a civil case. How else are you going to judge it other than choosing who you think is most likely to be in the right? Criminal Court is between the Crown (i.e. the state) and an individual. It's surely only right that you can't be sent to prison because you "probably" did something. Edited January 18, 2017 by adamntg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adamntg Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 24 minutes ago, TDYER63 said: Maybe, maybe not. Ive no idea what his chances are of overturning it. Is a civil conviction seen as less serious than a criminal conviction? If so he may just have accepted it rather than drag it on further. Can one of them appeal and the other not, or does it have to be joint ? There's a hunner grand in it for him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoobydoo Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 1 minute ago, adamntg said: Not really. Civil courts rules between two parties - "beyond reasonable doubt" wouldn't work in those circumstances - someone always wins in a civil case. How else are you going to judge it other than choosing who you think is most likely to be in the right? Criminal Court is between the Crown (i.e. the state) and an individual. It's surely only right that you can't be sent to prison because you "probably" did something. How does 'not proven' sit then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adamntg Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 10 minutes ago, scoobydoo said: How does 'not proven' sit then? Where the jury think you did it but there is not enough admissible evidence to prove you reasonable doubt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu101 Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 4 hours ago, scoobydoo said: As a layman it doesn't seem possible that something as serious as rape and culpable homocide can be seen in criminal and/ or civil Law terms, and especially civil Law. I guess it never enters the realms of everyday life. The civil aspect is a bit of a hangover from earlier times, when the authorities never really bothered about prosecuting this stuff. Back then it may have been the only way to get justice (as is the case now). There are not many cases about (less than 3 in the last 100 years?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.