• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
Collapse

You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

  • You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
  • You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
  • If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

Previously on "Anything but murder"

Collapse

  • AtW
    replied
    Originally posted by vetran
    Have a dig about in the history of this man he isn't eaxctly a saint.
    He could be the last scumbag on earth, but if criminal charges against him did not succeed, then using civil proceedings with much lower standard of proof "on balance of probabilities" to bankrup him is just totally wrong - this effectively amounts to double prosecution for the same crimes.

    Yes, he is scum and probably did it - but if you start using civil proceeding after criminal cases fail then the system will collapse - balance of probabilities is just way too low standard of proof for serious things like murder.

    Leave a comment:


  • vetran
    replied
    Not a nice man

    Have a dig about in the history of this man he isn't eaxctly a saint.

    Leave a comment:


  • AtW
    replied
    Originally posted by OwlHoot
    I'd agree wholehearedly if the verdict had been "not guilty". But I think the jury found him guilty, and it was only the CPS cock up with some paperwork that allowed him to get off on a technicality.
    I think this "technicality" was something like "lack of evidence" - remember that guy did not kill himself, there was no gun or knife in his hands, he was linked to two scumbags who actually did the murder (and were convicted in due term) and what linked this (admittedly nasty) guy to the victim was their previous fall out.

    The bottom line is this - using civil proof of guilt to doubly prosecute those who failed to be proven guilty beyond reasonably doubt under criminal law should be banned in principle.

    Leave a comment:


  • OwlHoot
    replied
    Originally posted by AtW
    There is something wrong with this civil crap - you either guilty of criminal offence or you not - this should be done on the basis of "beyond reasonable doubt", however bankrupting someone after he/she was judged not guilty by sueing in civil case that will be judged on "balance of probabilities" is just plain wrong, regardless of technicality or not that was responsible for not guilty verdict.
    I'd agree wholehearedly if the verdict had been "not guilty". But I think the jury found him guilty, and it was only the CPS cock up with some paperwork that allowed him to get off on a technicality.

    Leave a comment:


  • threaded
    replied
    But OwlHoot, you miss the point: how many bites of the cherry do the lawyers get by doing things this way? In the past it would have been one, fairly short, case. Now the whole circus gets paid at least three times for the same job!

    Leave a comment:


  • OwlHoot
    replied
    Originally posted by expat
    Wasn't there something similar with Tony Martin who shot and killed a burglar? He literally got away with murder because when he shot one guy dead, he had actually been intending to shoot the other guy: so although he had been intending to murder Fearon, he didn't even hit him with that shot; and although he killed Barras, he hadn't been intending to with that shot.
    There must have been slightly more to it than that. Other circumstances aside, the legal principle of transferred malice applies - For example, if you intentionally take a swing at someone but they duck and you deck someone standing behind them, then you could be convicted just the same as if you had struck the person who ducked, despite the unintended "accidental" assault on the actual victim.

    (But if after the person ducked, you accidently hit and smashed a priceless ming vase, you couldn't be prosecuted for criminal damage, despite the blow being deliberate, because malice is not deemed transferrable to a different kind of crime!)

    Leave a comment:


  • OwlHoot
    replied
    Originally posted by IR35 Avoider
    Because they couldn't prove he wanted the guy killed. He claimed the hired help had accidentally exceeded their mandate. Presumably the court agreed, if it convicted them of manslaughter rather than murder.
    Not so long ago it would have been murder, bang to rights - In common law, any death that occurred as a direct result of a felony (in this case conspiracy to commit felonious assault) was considered murder, even if the death was accidental or the felons were unaware of it at the time.
    Last edited by OwlHoot; 19 December 2005, 20:16.

    Leave a comment:


  • AtW
    replied
    There is something wrong with this civil crap - you either guilty of criminal offence or you not - this should be done on the basis of "beyond reasonable doubt", however bankrupting someone after he/she was judged not guilty by sueing in civil case that will be judged on "balance of probabilities" is just plain wrong, regardless of technicality or not that was responsible for not guilty verdict.

    Leave a comment:


  • expat
    replied
    Originally posted by NoddY
    "Property baron Nicholas van Hoogstraten has been held responsible by the High Court for the killing of businessman Mohammed Raja."


    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/s...es/4541878.stm

    In a nutshell:

    'Not a murderer'
    Done for manslaughter
    Got off the manslaugter charge
    Now he's 'responsible for killing'.
    Wasn't there something similar with Tony Martin who shot and killed a burglar? He literally got away with murder because when he shot one guy dead, he had actually been intending to shoot the other guy: so although he had been intending to murder Fearon, he didn't even hit him with that shot; and although he killed Barras, he hadn't been intending to with that shot.

    Leave a comment:


  • MrsGoof
    replied
    Is he a NL contributer ?

    Leave a comment:


  • IR35 Avoider
    replied
    Because they couldn't prove he wanted the guy killed. He claimed the hired help had accidentally exceeded their mandate. Presumably the court agreed, if it convicted them of manslaughter rather than murder.

    Leave a comment:


  • white-anglo-reactionary
    replied
    Rumpole of the Bailey

    Why wasn't this conspiracy to murder? Any barrack room lawyers out there?

    Leave a comment:


  • Fleetwood
    replied
    Not quite sure about that. IIRC, he had admitted to paying two heavies to have the guy done over, who later died, but this didn't count as manslaughter, a crime for which the heavies got done... (caveat - again IIRC)

    Leave a comment:


  • Lobby Lud
    replied
    Murder?

    Nicholas van Hoogstraten was let off the charge because of a technicality. When he was arrested the CPS had filled in the wrong form.

    Leave a comment:


  • NoddY
    started a topic Anything but murder

    Anything but murder

    "Property baron Nicholas van Hoogstraten has been held responsible by the High Court for the killing of businessman Mohammed Raja."


    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/s...es/4541878.stm

    In a nutshell:

    'Not a murderer'
    Done for manslaughter
    Got off the manslaugter charge
    Now he's 'responsible for killing'.

Working...
X