Victim must pay £100,000 to lotto rapist

[k69atie]

What are your views on this?


CLAIM BROUGHT TOO LATE

The victim of Lotto rapist Iorworth Hoare must pay £100,000 towards his legal costs after she lost her bid to sue him for compensation.

The 76-year-old woman was challenging an earlier ruling banning her from claiming compensation, but a judge decided to uphold the ban.


Hoare, 52, was jailed for life in May 1989 for trying to rape the former teacher, who has suffered "psychiatric injury" since the attack.

He won £7m after buying a lottery ticket while on weekend leave from Leyhill open prison last year.

Mr Justice Jack said he decided to uphold the ruling because Hoare was bound to win if the case came to trial as the claim was brought more than the legal limit of six years after the assault occurred.

"In my view, at this stage, it is sufficiently clear that this action is barred by limitation of time," he said.

The judge also ordered the woman, known as Mrs A, to pay around £100,000 towards Hoare's legal costs.

Mrs A's lawyers said she is not asking for a specific amount of compensation, but wanted to pay back the £5,000 she had received from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board.

The Home Office is now considering extending the six-year deadline to allow victims to bring civil cases against offenders to claim compsenation.

 

[Humorraz]

I dont really understand, can u explain it in a more simple way plz?

 

[Dave D]

The man is a piece of shit. A piece of shit still has the right to win the lottery. Its like people expect judges to look at this case and judge by the fact he won the lotto. That is not how the law works. Unfair? Yes. Legal? Yes.

 

[k69atie]

^^ i agree. but how it is legal i really don't know. surely if he has won the lottery he can pay his own costs! i really don't understand how it works

 

[Illuminattile]

^^ i agree. but how it is legal i really don't know. surely if he has won the lottery he can pay his own costs! i really don't understand how it works

Just because someone has money doesn't mean they should pay for being unsuccessfully sued.

 

[k69atie]

^^ maybe not but he is a rapist, why should see may compo to him?

 

[Valeoz]

Since this is the UK and their laws, can't really speak on it. From the looks of it tho, the conflict doesn't seem to lie with the victim paying 100,000, but the law itself. Otherwise, everything is justified to the extent of the law.

So who is really to take the blame?

^^ i agree. but how it is legal i really don't know. surely if he has won the lottery he can pay his own costs! i really don't understand how it works

Because of this six-year deadline the man is not obligated to pay.

Edit:

^^ maybe not but he is a rapist, why should see may compo to him?

Since the man is not obligated to pay, the woman is obliged to pay the expenses of the defense. It would be unruly to not compensate for the expenses since there never was a case to begin. In other words, she wasted his money.

 

[tupacmansion]

Its not compensation, its just the legal costs which the rapist incurred. The Judge cant base his decision on the amount of money the rapist has or whether he is a rapist. The woman lost the case, therefore she must pay the legal costs, its the law and its unfair in this situation.
And how the fuck did the legal costs come to £100,000

 

[stefanwzyga]

Tell ya that lady must be feelin super fucked off!!

 

[Illuminattile]

^^ maybe not but he is a rapist, why should see may compo to him?

The court case wasn't about whether or not he tried to rape her in 1989, it was about whether she could now claim compensation for it.

The losing party in a court case pays the fees for both parties. She lost the case, she has to pay the court costs.

 

[k69atie]

^^^ ok cool. thanks i don't understand all this legal crap.

 

[Humorraz]

she shouldnt have to pay and its fucked up she has to.

 

[stefanwzyga]

she shouldnt have to pay and its fucked up she has to.

Well who do you think should pay for the cost of it all?