retired_bemesel

story

The guy did the crime 19 years ago - aliebit attempted rape. Should he pay out of his lotto winnings? If so how much?

retired_linton_justin

Blatant attempt to make a few quid. Should be told to fo imo.

retired_traci29

kinell, another gold digger. don't women in this country actually realise they have to ****ing work for a living like the rest of us?

retired_katie14

£3,264,976.64

retired_therob

Allowing civil claims to be more than 6 years after the event isn't so bad. As long as due process is adhered to etc.

What's ridiculous is the idea that the guy should have the money taken from him and distributed to charities:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3556304.stm

retired_derek

No he shouldn't.

Sure it's not something that's easily stomachable, a criminal winning the lotto while still serving their punishment, but i really don't see how him winning the lotto equates to him having to give it to the woman he raped.

retired_v_meenucancer

um...

retired_katie14

It's a case of whether she should be able to sue him or not.

retired_musiclova31

The commission said the current law was "defective", and called for a 30-year limit for claims in personal injury cases.

that's just absurd. nothing wrong with a six year statute of limitations. only reason it should be stretched is for legal discovery purposes.

retired_bball3378

No, of course not. Unless future earnings are going to be included in any punishment handed out. If he'd made his money directly off the back of his crime(s) there's some potential for some form of redistribution / restrictions but otherwise it is just nonsense.

Obviously you have to have sympathy for the woman involved and it must be sickening to see that this bloke has had such a slice of luck, but that's all it is, luck. And it is nothing whatsoever to do with her or what happened 18 years ago.

Equally, if the challenge isn't taking the lottery win into account, and is simply looking at over turning the 6 year rule then that's fair enough. There's some practical logic behind having a cut-off point, but equally shouldn't every case be reviewed on its merit? The length of time elapsed before the claim was bought should be taken into account in the verdict and any pay out....rather than any case (however strong) simply being thrown out because a set period has elapsed.



Whether prisoners should be allowed to play the lottery is another issue.