Should criminals be allowed to sue their victims?

[tanman]

DaBeeeenster

I widna walk across a field.
I would like to see him try to hit me with a golf club though.

Tan

[Saracen]

Originally posted by DaBeeeenster
This is entirely my point. Who's to say what other people decide to be damaging to their property? The farmer MAY WELL decide that the trespasser is damaging his property. Maybe he's just sown some new seed or something. Who knows. The point is that, according to the posts above, HE IS WELL WITHIN HIS RIGHTS to do what he likes to the trespasser.

Another example. Two kids are playing football in the street. One of them kicks the ball and it bounces of your car, knocking the wing mirror back. Should you be allowed to punch the kid into a coma? He just damaged your property...

Bad examples, Ben. We're talking, surely, about CRIMINALS suing their victims. Trepass is not a crime, at least, not in the UK. Neither is an accident where a car is ACCIDENTALLY damaged.

In either case, the action would be civil not criminal.

Entering someone's house without permission is not a criminal offence, unless you use violence, cause damage or intend to commit a crime once their (like theft). Just entering is a civil wrong - trespass.

Of course, in the case that prompted this thread, Fearon was burgling the place. This is self-evident, despite his denials. For a start, his co-burglar (the driver, Darren Bark) admitted it, and also Martin's silver was found in the holdall Barras and Fearon were using.

And in my view, Fearon should not be allowed to sue Martin for injuries received while he was committing a criminal act against Martin. Had Fearon obeyed the law, he would not have been injured and would therefore have no claim. He is ONLY injured because he decided to break the law, and he should not be able to claim financial reward from his criminal actions. And he MOST EMPHATICALLY should not be able to use tax-payers money (legal aid) to do it.

[spikegifted]

Originally posted by Saracen
Entering someone's house without permission is not a criminal offence, unless you use violence, cause damage or intend to commit a crime once their (like theft). Just entering is a civil wrong - trespass.

That's the reason why there is such a charge as 'criminal trespass. However, I'm not sure what are the conditions which will bring such a charge.

Back to the topic. IMHO, I think that the moment a person, not necessarily a convited criminal, is proved to have (or has admitted to have) the 'intent' to commit a crime, all rights to counter-sue should be taken away from him/her.

[Saracen]

Originally posted by spikegifted
That's the reason why there is such a charge as 'criminal trespass. However, I'm not sure what are the conditions which will bring such a charge.

Erm, in general and with some specific exceptions, I don't believe there is such a charge - at least, not in the UK. In the US, yeah, there is, and in many other countries too, but not in the UK.

The main exception is trespass on or near the railways, and the reason it is a separate and specifically criminal offence is the obvious safety implications. There have been discussions about extending this to some other classes of land but as far as I know, not even MoD land and facilities such as Aldermaston have this protection.

The Criminal Law Act 1977 extended this concept to the premises of foreign embassies. I think it also applies in conjunction with squatting in a private dwelling in which the land owner had been intending to reside.

The whole issue was raised again in the prelude to the eventual passing of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, in which a new charge of [b]aggravated[/b[ trespass was created but, again, it is very specific in it's remit. It was feared that it would put paid to all forms of squatting and to occupation of factories by striking employees, but in the final event, did not.

It DOES extend the criminal aspects of trepass to cover some forms of protest if, by such trepass you threaten or intimidate other persons on the land going about some ligitimate purpose. Hunt saboteurs would seem to be a likely candidate for this charge.

Outside of certain specific situations (and I might have missed some), there is no general charge of criminal trespass - it remains a civil matter.

I do stand to be corrected, however, if someone knows better.

[Big RICHARD]

Breaking and entering? That's a criminal offence!

[DaBeeeenster]

Originally posted by Saracen
[B]Erm, in general and with some specific exceptions, I don't believe there is such a charge - at least, not in the UK. In the US, yeah, there is, and in many other countries too, but not in the UK.

The main exception is trespass on or near the railways, and the reason it is a separate and specifically criminal offence is the obvious safety implications. There have been discussions about extending this to some other classes of land but as far as I know, not even MoD land and facilities such as Aldermaston have this protection.

The Criminal Law Act 1977 extended this concept to the premises of foreign embassies. I think it also applies in conjunction with squatting in a private dwelling in which the land owner had been intending to reside.

The whole issue was raised again in the prelude to the eventual passing of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, in which a new charge of aggravated[/b[ trespass was created but, again, it is very specific in it's remit. It was feared that it would put paid to all forms of squatting and to occupation of factories by striking employees, but in the final event, did not.

It DOES extend the criminal aspects of trepass to cover some forms of protest if, by such trepass you threaten or intimidate other persons on the land going about some ligitimate purpose. Hunt saboteurs would seem to be a likely candidate for this charge.

Outside of certain specific situations (and I might have missed some), there is no general charge of criminal trespass - it remains a civil matter.

I do stand to be corrected, however, if someone knows better.

If I change my example to one of a child maliciously kicking a ball at a car, denting one of the panels. This would be a criminal act, in terms of wilful destruction of property.

[Big RICHARD]

Originally posted by DaBeeeenster
If I change my example to one of a child maliciously kicking a ball at a car, denting one of the panels. This would be a criminal act, in terms of wilful destruction of property.

And that kid deserves a smack round the back of the head!

[jon bda]

Its stuff like a burglar who is taking the people he was robbing to court because of injury that makes the legal system a farce...it shouldn't be allowed...to think that they actually get awarded Legal Aid to do this defies belief...

[DaBeeeenster]

Originally posted by jon bda
Its stuff like a burglar who is taking the people he was robbing to court because of injury that makes the legal system a farce...it shouldn't be allowed...to think that they actually get awarded Legal Aid to do this defies belief...

This is exactly the sort of thing that WILL get thrown out of court.

The point is that, for the system to be fair, the courts HAVE to be able to hear every compliant, so that they can decide what should be tried and what shouldn't. Every case is different, and to decide on a blanket ban for certain instances would be an extremely dangerous precedent.

If the above situation actually ended up with a robber successfully claiming against a victim then I would be in complete agreement that this is a farce, but the fact is that this simply doesn't happen. Of course it has to actually GET to court; it needs to be fairly heard, but I have never heard of a case such as the one described above actually finding for the claimant. It simply doesn't happen. No doubt the Daily Mail would love it to happen so they have something else to scream about, but it just doesn't happen.

[Saracen]

If it is simply going to get thrown out, then why waste tax-payers money supporting it with legal aid?

Anyway, it looks rather moot now. Fearon has apparently been videoed doing many of the things he claimed he couldn't do. It looks likely that the legal aid will be withdrawn. Also, if it turns out he lied to get legal aid, then the Legal Aid Board can claim any monies already spent back from Fearon.

Of course, claiming it back and actually getting it out of the little scrote are two different things.

[Punky]

i just saw Fearon on the news, they got videos of him walking properly and riding his bike, and he's claimin compensation for injuries he said prevent him doing either of those things. he shouldn't be allowed any money whatsoever and made to pay the legal costs he would otherwise be getting for nothing. dirty lying pikey.

[DaBeeeenster]

Originally posted by Saracen
If it is simply going to get thrown out, then why waste tax-payers money supporting it with legal aid?

Anyway, it looks rather moot now. Fearon has apparently been videoed doing many of the things he claimed he couldn't do. It looks likely that the legal aid will be withdrawn. Also, if it turns out he lied to get legal aid, then the Legal Aid Board can claim any monies already spent back from Fearon.

Of course, claiming it back and actually getting it out of the little scrote are two different things.

It's a bit chicken and egg really. It has to go to court for them to be able to make a decision whether it can go to court. All cases are different, and they have to be seen on an individual and distinct basis. Obviously the situations like the one we are discussing will be thrown out of court straight away, thus not taking up much time.

If a court is not going to decide what applications have a basis for a proper trial, who is?

[Saracen]

It's not just about going to court, though, it's also about getting public funding to do it.

There is nothing to stop the criteria for legal aid being available including something like "thou shall not be eligible for legal aid to pursue compensation for injuries received while committing an arrestable offence".

That would exclude the minor, trivial things but still prevent scrotes like Fearon trying to screw the system.

I also hope the Legal Aid Board go after him for any fundning already paid out - though somehow I doubt it.

[homerhassall]

No....There's nothing to add except to wonder how the slimey money grabbing defence lawyers get to sleep at night, some of them make my skin crawl with their bulls*** and ability to make even the worst criminals sound like pretty nice guys.

[steve threlfall]

Originally posted by homerhassall
No....There's nothing to add except to wonder how the slimey money grabbing defence lawyers get to sleep at night, some of them make my skin crawl with their bulls*** and ability to make even the worst criminals sound like pretty nice guys.

I know exactly what your talking about. I couldnt live with myself. Isnt helping a criminal a crime in any other cirsumstances but in court? something to think about

[homerhassall]

Good thought!!