Soldier cleared of rape ordered to pay £100,000 in civil case

#1
"A soldier cleared of rape has been ordered to pay his alleged victim more than £100,000 in a civil case.

Sean Diamond, 24, had stood trial for allegedly raping a woman while she slept in a Dundee flat in July 2015. A jury at the High Court in Edinburgh found the case not proven in October. A civil action for damages was granted by a Dundee sheriff after the claim was not defended by Mr Diamond, who has since said this was due to an oversight and that he plans to defend the action. Lawyers acting for Mr Diamond said that he had failed to lodge defences in time."


Soldier cleared of rape told to pay £100,000


Very silly of the soldier not have lodged a defence in the civil case. However I imagine he will ask to get the judgement set aside.

Can any legal beagles speculate on the chances of that being granted. I assume you have to have a good reason to ignore a claim in your name assuming it was correctly served?

On a side note £100k is a nice round sum. I wonder how that was calculated. Presumably the claimant will be asked to 'show her workings' at some point?
 
#2
I am on the wrong side of the pond to give a firm answer but here in the US, courts tend to view with disfavor any default judgement, even if there is proof that the defendant was properly served with the writ and complaint that would initiate a civil action (in a US court, no idea of UK terminology)

One problem he would face is that in a criminal case the standard of proof (US - beyond reasonable doubt) is more stringent than a civil tort case (US - preponderance of evidence)
 
#3
I am on the wrong side of the pond to give a firm answer but here in the US, courts tend to view with disfavor any default judgement, even if there is proof that the defendant was properly served with the writ and complaint that would initiate a civil action (in a US court, no idea of UK terminology)

One problem he would face is that in a criminal case the standard of proof (US - beyond reasonable doubt) is more stringent than a civil tort case (US - preponderance of evidence)

In the UK we have 3 separate justice systems. This case is in Scotland so Scottish law will apply.
 
#4
One problem he would face is that in a criminal case the standard of proof (US - beyond reasonable doubt) is more stringent than a civil tort case (US - preponderance of evidence)
Generally the same here.. In criminal cases the haggis-bashers have the anomalous verdict of "not proven" available. i.e prosecution failed to prove it's case so should be "not guilty"to anyone who didn't grow up on boiled oats and the bits of a sheep your cat would turn down....
 
#5
The plaintiff has already clearly stated the usual cliche crap " It was never about money, but justice.
OK then, you have had your day in Court, the "Bastard Verdict"as it always does pretty much says " Yes...he dunnit...but we cannot prove it" There now, we believe you sweetie. Justice is done.
So, fluck off and keep yourself to yourself.
 
#6
Generally the same here.. In criminal cases the haggis-bashers have the anomalous verdict of "not proven" available. i.e prosecution failed to prove it's case so should be "not guilty"to anyone who didn't grow up on boiled oats and the bits of a sheep your cat would turn down....
Not proven means the court thinks you probably are guilty but the prosecution has failed to prove it beyond reasonable doubt.
 
#7
Not proven means the court thinks you probably are guilty but the prosecution has failed to prove it beyond reasonable doubt.
Surely after getting a non-proven his legal advisers should have been prepping for a civil case to hove into view fairly sharpish.
 

MrBane

LE
Moderator
Kit Reviewer
Reviews Editor
#10
Generally the same here.. In criminal cases the haggis-bashers have the anomalous verdict of "not proven" available. i.e prosecution failed to prove it's case so should be "not guilty"to anyone who didn't grow up on boiled oats and the bits of a sheep your cat would turn down....
Yes, and it's to show that there is evidence suggesting the crime was committed but it hasn't been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Otherwise you'd have lots of clearly bad people walking about with a 'not guilty' verdict.

The 'not proven' gets used a lot and is a very useful court tool which if I recall, can sometimes be referred to in future cases of a similar MO.

So it's quite an advanced and sensible verdict.
 
#13
Which is exactly what "Not Guilty" means....
There is a distinction in Scotland
Proven / Guilty - There is no doubt
Not guilty - They are innocent, are acquitted and go free
Not proven - The ‘Beyond reasonable doubt’ test has failed, they may not be guilty but they may not be innocent. They are acquitted and go free - this helps a civil case where the level of proof doesn’t need to ‘beyond reasonable doubt’
 
#14
There is a distinction in Scotland
Proven / Guilty - There is no doubt
Not guilty - They are innocent, are acquitted and go free
Not proven - The ‘Beyond reasonable doubt’ test has failed, they may not be guilty but they may not be innocent. They are acquitted and go free - this helps a civil case where the level of proof doesn’t need to ‘beyond reasonable doubt’
I’d certainly never heard of a not proven verdict being implicit of a civil prosecution
 
#15
I’d certainly never heard of a not proven verdict being implicit of a civil prosecution
Not implicit in a civil prosecution

But as in this case, he had not been found guilty of rape, she has the other civil avenue and it wouldn’t have hurt her position that the original case was not proven as opposed to not guilty
 
#16
according to R4 last night the Soldier in question's defence was he was not notified. Are we to assume that the civil courts in Scotland are prepared to judge in a case where the alleged transgressor is not available?
IF the action was not properly served on the defender that would be a good reason to set aside the judgement. He would also, through his lawyers, have to state a defence to the action. Re your second sentence, certainly the civil courts in Scotland as in other jurisdictions would be prepared to issue a judgement in a case where the defender has not entered a defence but the action (as far as the court is aware) has been properly served.
 
#17
Not implicit in a civil prosecution

But as in this case, he had not been found guilty of rape, she has the other civil avenue and it wouldn’t have hurt her position that the original case was not proven as opposed to not guilty
I revert to my original point. She can of course refer to the criminal prosecution which failed in the civil case but to what extent would the criminal case have influenced the outcome, given the allegation by the Soldier that he was never notified of the civil prosecution
 
#18
I revert to my original point. She can of course refer to the criminal prosecution which failed in the civil case but to what extent would the criminal case have influenced the outcome, given the allegation by the Soldier that he was never notified of the civil prosecution
Two different issues. If the defender wasn't notified of the civil action, that has no legal or factual connection with the outcome of the criminal prosecution.
 
#20
I am on the wrong side of the pond
Americans lawyers will never cope well with Scots Law. You're just not equipped to deal with a legal system where witchcraft was still a criminal offence within living memory and trial by combat was still an option until it was formally abolished in 1985. (There's still a Queen's Champion for Scotland whose job is to fight anybody demanding trial by combat but he's older than I am so I doubt he fights much).

Scotland's enduring interest in witchery possibly explains why trainee lawyers, in the year between leaving university and becoming qualified, are known as "devils". The experienced lawyers to whom the devils are apprenticed are known as "devilmasters".

How well I remember going into shops where whole aisles were roped off and out of bounds to shoppers because it was illegal to buy tinned food, but not fresh food, on a Sunday. You couldn't buy a Bible on a Sunday either but you were free to reach up to the top shelf and buy less pious publications.

Similarly, it was illegal for a woman to stand on a window ledge to clean windows. Not for health and safety reasons but because our ancestors took "upskirting" rather more seriously than we do.

Scots law is a consequence of Scotland having an independent legal system but lacking an independent parliament to enact legislation between 1707 and 1999. It took centuries to get into this mess and I bet it will take centuries to get out.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top