Has a criminal ever sued a victim Successfully

Zambia

Hi

This came up in the ES Forum. The question has been asked has a criminal after coming of worse in the commison of a crime in Ireland. Ever successfully sued his/her intended victim afterwards?

For instance a burglar falling of a roof and suing the homeowner. Mugger snatching a purse and being knocked out by a punch from the victim.

Thanks in advance
Z

Thread in Question if interested

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=67831977#post67831977

Bluefox21

Don't have any case names to hand but I imagine there is quite a large amount of cases where the "victim" has surpassed the necessary and reasonable force requirement.

Nally was very close to being put in jail. I reckon there are a few similar scenarios where the verdict has been different.

Edit: After reading the other thread I will do a quick check and see if I can find anything!

Esel

Bluefox21 wrote: »

Nally was very close to being put in jail.

I thought he was convicted of manslaughter, sentenced and jailed but his conviction was finally quashed on appeal?

Jev/N

esel wrote: »

I thought he was convicted of manslaughter, sentenced and jailed but his conviction was finally quashed on appeal?

I may be wrong but I think he was re-tried.

MagicSean

It's common enough for uninsured drivers to claim off an insured driver if they are hit. I can never understand why this is deemed acceptable by the courts.

detective

esel wrote: »

I thought he was convicted of manslaughter, sentenced and jailed but his conviction was finally quashed on appeal?

Correct

Our man in Havana

k_mac wrote: »

It's common enough for uninsured drivers to claim off an insured driver if they are hit. I can never understand why this is deemed acceptable by the courts.

There is no law that prohibits a claim in those circumstances.

MagicSean

Haddockman wrote: »

There is no law that prohibits a claim in those circumstances.

Yes but driving with no insurance is a crime as much as burglary is. And during the course of committing this crime you get injured and can claim from the person who is deemed to have injured you.

drkpower

k_mac wrote: »

Yes but driving with no insurance is a crime as much as burglary is. And during the course of committing this crime you get injured and can claim from the person who is deemed to have injured you.

Driving without a seatbelt is a crime but if someone ploughed into you while you were unbelted, do you think you should be precluded from suing them?

MagicSean

drkpower wrote: »

Driving without a seatbelt is a crime but if someone ploughed into you while you were unbelted, do you think you should be precluded from suing them?

I don't think you should be able to sue for injuries that would have been prevented by wearing your seatbelt. If you aren't insured in a car you shouldn't be there in the first place to be in an accident.

Hogzy

DPP v Barnes was a 2007 case where a burglar (Barnes) was in the house, Homeowner comes home to find Barnes in the house with the bag of swag. Barnes ended up killing the homeowner in Self Defense. Only reduced Murder to manslaughter though, If barnes was doing a lawful act it would have been a full acquittal as long as the force was necessary to defend oneself.

Not exactly an example of a Criminal suing a victim but its an example of a Criminal intending to kill a victim while on the victims property and availing of self defense

k_mac wrote: »

I don't think you should be able to sue for injuries that would have been prevented by wearing your seatbelt. If you aren't insured in a car you shouldn't be there in the first place to be in an accident.

Exactly. Contributory Negligence would reduce the damages SIGNIFICANTLY. Again it all depends on the facts, like if you just got into your car and hadnt put on the seat-belt yet and a drunk guy comes the wrong way down a one way street and ploughs into your parked car then its a totally different story.

k_mac wrote: »

Yes but driving with no insurance is a crime as much as burglary is. And during the course of committing this crime you get injured and can claim from the person who is deemed to have injured you.

Driving without insurance is no where close to Burglary, Burglary is an arrestable offense. Driving without insurance is not. The only duty you owe to a burglar/adult trespasser that you do not know of, is the duty not to harm them willfully. You must intentionally harm them in order to be able to sue. So if "Mr. 5 Finger Discount" comes onto your property without permission and slips on the top of your fence, while climbing over it, and maims himself, under no circumstances will they have any cause of action against the homeowner unless that homeowner intended to cause Mr. 5 Finger Discount injury. Even if you put grease on top of the fence to increase the chances of someone falling, if the trespasser falls and maims himself then you will not be liable as long as the trespasser has an intention to commit an offence on your property.

Occupiers Liability Act 1995

4.—(1) In respect of a danger existing on premises, an occupier owes towards a recreational user of the premises or a trespasser thereon ("the person") a duty—


( a ) not to injure the person or damage the property of the person intentionally, and


( b ) not to act with reckless disregard for the person or the property of the person,

(3) ( a ) Where a person enters onto premises for the purpose of committing an offence or, while present thereon, commits an offence, the occupier shall not be liable for a breach of the duty imposed by subsection (1) (b) unless a court determines otherwise in the interests of justice.

drkpower

k_mac wrote: »

I don't think you should be able to sue for injuries that would have been prevented by wearing your seatbelt. If you aren't insured in a car you shouldn't be there in the first place to be in an accident.

Well its usually dealt with by way of contributory negligence, and any award of damages is reduced (even to zero) to reflect the extent to which the lack of a seatbelt conributed to the injuries.

But what you really are missing is the differences in culbability between one driver & the other. For instance, if someone, uninsured, is driving from therir house 100m up the road to a neighbours house, and is ploughed into by a drunk driver, driving 200kmh blinfolded, do you really think that the drunk driver shouldnt be culpable at all (in the civil sphere)? Obviously I am choosing an extreme example, however I am trying to ilustrate the point to you.

Our man in Havana

Contributory Negligence would reduce the damages SIGNIFICANTLY.

Exactly. So whilst they may sue the amount they will get will be reduced due to their negligence.

MagicSean

drkpower wrote: »

Well its usually dealt with by way of contributory negligence, and any award of damages is reduced (even to zero) to reflect the extent to which the lack of a seatbelt conributed to the injuries.

But what you really are missing is the differences in culbability between one driver & the other. For instance, if someone, uninsured, is driving from therir house 100m up the road to a neighbours house, and is ploughed into by a drunk driver, driving 200kmh blinfolded, do you really think that the drunk driver shouldnt be culpable at all (in the civil sphere)? Obviously I am choosing an extreme example, however I am trying to ilustrate the point to you.

I accept your point. But in your example both crimes are of a similar level in regards to how serious they are and both parties have committed an offence. This would be like a burglar being shot by a home owner with an illegal firearm (like a tazer). Both burglary and posession of an offensive weapon are arrestable offences. I am talking about a road traffic situation were someone who has committed no offence is still required to compensate a second party who has committed an offence. I would suggest this is comparable to a burglar who receives injuries from being hit over the head with an item (like a frying pan) and suffers severe injuries for which he sues.

If you take an example I saw recently. A woman was waiting to turn onto a main road at a T-Junction. Road was clear so she moved out. An uninsured driver came around the corner at high speed and ploughed into passenger side of her car. There was no way she could have seen him coming so she has not committed any offence. He has committed two offences in being uninsured and speeding. Yet he is the one who receives the pay out from the insurance company.

Our man in Havana

That is down to the insurance company failing to defend against his claim.

drkpower

k_mac wrote: »

If you take an example I saw recently. A woman was waiting to turn onto a main road at a T-Junction. Road was clear so she moved out. An uninsured driver came around the corner at high speed and ploughed into passenger side of her car. There was no way she could have seen him coming so she has not committed any offence. He has committed two offences in being uninsured and speeding. Yet he is the one who receives the pay out from the insurance company.

How is the uninsured driver getting a pay-out? It seems he was in the wrong? Am i missing something?

Hogzy

k_mac wrote: »

I am talking about a road traffic situation were someone who has committed no offence is still required to compensate a second party who has committed an offence.

k_mac, in the above example by drkpower both people are commiting an offence. One driving uninsured (Criminally culpable in District court, probably receive fine and points, possible to get jail depending on circumstances).
The other offense is dangerous driving and driving while under the influence of drink and/or drugs. The latter being an arrestable offense (Again given the severity of the speed and the act he was blind folded will increase the chance of a jail sentence.)

Now that is the criminal cases. If the uninsured driver chooses he can bring a civil case for damages due to the negligence of the drunk driver, The fact that he was uninsured does not make any difference to the outcome of the situation. If he was insured the drunk blindfolded driver would still have hit him and have caused the same injuries. Therefore contributory negligence may not play a part in the civil claim for damages. It would be different if he didnt wear a seatbelt as this would have increased the chances for the injuries to be worse therefore increasing the damages that the drunk blindfolded driver would have to pay to the uninsured driver.

I would suggest this is comparable to a burglar who receives injuries from being hit over the head with an item (like a frying pan) and suffers severe injuries for which he sues.

Burglar would not have locus standi (legal standing) to bring a civil case for damages in this case because he is a trespasser/burglar and the homeowner is defending his property, Defending your property also falls under the Self Defense Doctrine as if you are defending youself.

MagicSean

Hogzy wrote: »

k_mac, in the above example by drkpower both people are commiting an offence. One driving uninsured (Criminally culpable in District court, probably receive fine and points, possible to get jail depending on circumstances).
The other offense is dangerous driving and driving while under the influence of drink and/or drugs. The latter being an arrestable offense (Again given the severity of the speed and the act he was blind folded will increase the chance of a jail sentence.)

Neither dangerous driving nor driving under the influence are arrestable offences. Both have a power of arrest attached by statute. Dangerous driving causing serious injury or death is an arrestable offence.

Hogzy wrote: »

Now that is the criminal cases. If the uninsured driver chooses he can bring a civil case for damages due to the negligence of the drunk driver, The fact that he was uninsured does not make any difference to the outcome of the situation. If he was insured the drunk blindfolded driver would still have hit him and have caused the same injuries. Therefore contributory negligence may not play a part in the civil claim for damages. It would be different if he didnt wear a seatbelt as this would have increased the chances for the injuries to be worse therefore increasing the damages that the drunk blindfolded driver owes to the uninsured driver.

If he had not committed the crime of driving while uninsured he would not have been there to be hit.

Hogzy wrote: »

Burglar would not have locus standi (legal standing) to bring a civil case for damages in this case because he is a trespasser/burglar and the homeowner is defending his property, Defending your property also falls under the Self Defense Doctrine as if you are defending youself.

Unless the burglar could prove the owners actions were disproportionate to the danger. I could probably write the statement. "Judge I'm not a violent man. If I had known there was someone in the house I would have run. He didn't have to hit me so hard that he fractured my skull. I'm only 5ft 4" and I'm very thin. If I'd even heard a noise I'd have been gone like a light. I'm not a thief but in this recession I'm trying to provide for my family. It's the first time I ever committed a crime and now I might have permanent brain damage. Who's going to look after my children?"

Hogzy

k_mac wrote: »

If he had not committed the crime of driving while uninsured he would not have been there to be hit.

Yes but his act of driving uninsured did not cause the accident. The drunk blindfolded driver did.

Unless the burglar could prove the owners actions were disproportionate to the danger.

Yes, but i would think hitting a burglar over the head with a frying pan is not disproportionate.

I could probably write the statement. "Judge I'm not a violent man. If I had known there was someone in the house I would have run.

It doesnt matter what the burglar thinks. If the homeowner believed his actions were necessary to prevent the unlawful taking of his property then that will be a defense to any assault charge.

He didn't have to hit me so hard that he fractured my skull. I'm only 5ft 4" and I'm very thin

.
Again it is what the homeowner deems necessary to defend his property(Different if he killed the burglar). The physical build of a burglar again is immaterial to the fact that he is a burglar.

If I'd even heard a noise I'd have been gone like a light.

Again the homeowner does not know that he would be gone like a light and again the home owner has the constitutional right to protect his property.

I'm not a thief but in this recession I'm trying to provide for my family It's the first time I ever committed a crime and now I might have permanent brain damage. Who's going to look after my children?"

This may reduce the sentence for a crime such as assault or on of the public order offense it would not do much for his sentence for burglary. Just because Ireland is in a recession doesnt mean the court will set a precedent that will mirror the fact that a father can burgle other peoples homes to feed his own family and get a slap on the wrist. That isnt how the justice system works.

Zambia

This is really good stuff lads. They way I read it so far nodoby can recall or think of a case where a criminal (non traffic offence related) has successfully sued the victim.

The reason I find this interesting is the countless Urban myths that surround this idea they do.

Hogzy

Zambia232 wrote: »

This is really good stuff lads. They way I read it so far nodoby can recall or think of a case where a criminal (non traffic offence related) has successfully sued the victim.

The reason I find this interesting is the countless Urban myths that surround this idea they do.

Its just hear-say. People in this country (and most countries tbh) always use these horror stories to scare others aswell as themselves into a belief that it is up to them to protect their rights.
I think its this fear factor, that the law is out to prey on the innocent rather than the guilty, that is making our state so dam conservative.

drkpower

Hogzy wrote: »

Its just hear-say. People in this country (and most countries tbh) always use these horror stories to scare others aswell as themselves into a belief that it is up to them to protect their rights.
I think its this fear factor, that the law is out to prey on the innocent rather than the guilty, that is making our state so dam conservative.

Amen to that.

The belief that people are being sued left, right & centre seems to be pervasive in this country. But the stats dont actually back it up. Aside from the annoyance of people peddling sheer ignorance, it also leads to managers/risk managers putting in place gudelines that are entirely non-sensical for fear of being sued (a good example being the fact that some schools do not allow teachers to put a band-aid on a child in case an allergic reaction is suffered).

My pet hate is the unjust fear of medical litigation against doctors - the belief that medical negligence claims are rife in this country is pervasive - most doctors take it as gospel - it actually leads to many of them practising in a defensive manner, which is bad for patient care and particularly public health - but the actual numbers of claims, relative to adverse clinical incidents and other countries, is quite modest. A linked issue is Good Samaritan acts, many people believe you have a good chance of getting sued if you (medic or non-medic) intervene in an accident situation - however, no cases have ever been taken against a Good Samaritan in Ireland. Go figure....

drkpower

drkpower wrote: »

My pet hate is the unjust fear of medical litigation against doctors - the belief that medical negligence claims are rife in this country is pervasive - most doctors take it as gospel - it actually leads to many of them practising in a defensive manner, which is bad for patient care and particularly public health - but the actual numbers of claims, relative to adverse clinical incidents and other countries, is quite modest. A linked issue is Good Samaritan acts, many people believe you have a good chance of getting sued if you (medic or non-medic) intervene in an accident situation - however, no cases have ever been taken against a Good Samaritan in Ireland. Go figure....

I've had this discussion with a doctor friend of mine and she took the position that the modest number of claims is as a result of the nonsense procedures put in place and the defensive practice.

I'd share the same viewpoint as you but it is difficult to convince someone in her position that there is no correlation between the action and the perceived effect.

drkpower

Deleted User wrote: »

I've had this discussion with a doctor friend of mine and she took the position that the modest number of claims is as a result of the nonsense procedures put in place and the defensive practice.

I'd share the same viewpoint as you but it is difficult to convince someone in her position that there is no correlation between the action and the perceived effect.

The numbers of claims has been relatively stable over the last 5-6 years anyway - prior to 04/05, i dont think there are figures compiled as the clinical indemity scheme didnt defend them all. Anecdotallly, I dont think there has been any significant reduction since the early noughties/90s.

Zambia

drkpower wrote: »

Amen to that.

The belief that people are being sued left, right & centre seems to be pervasive in this country. But the stats dont actually back it up.

Please tell me there are Stats.

If i wanted to look for cases like this myself is their an Online resource?

drkpower

Zambia232 wrote: »

Please tell me there are Stats.

If i wanted to look for cases like this myself is their an Online resource?

http://claims.ie/index.php?id=115

The following might help - this probably deserves its own thread rather than hijacking this one, though.

Zambia

My bad I meant if I wanted to look for cases where a criminal has sued a victim myself.

However I dread the thought as cases would not be listed as Criminal V Victim. Hence my appeal for info from the Legal fraternity.

Hogzy

Zambia232 wrote: »

My bad I meant if I wanted to look for cases where a criminal has sued a victim myself.

However I dread the thought as cases would not be listed as Criminal V Victim. Hence my appeal for info from the Legal fraternity.

Im sure there MUST be a case out there (Definitely in the UK) where a homeowner intentionally harmed an intruder.
Although in this case the intruder may become the criminal/accused by definition.

Zambia

Hogzy wrote: »

Although in this case the intruder may become the criminal/accused by definition.

I would agree 100%. But it would have to be a fairly clear case.

As in the person boasted to the arresting cops that he "worked him over".:o

TheNewMe

Here's one case from the UK - probably the best known - where a farmer was jailed for shooting two burglars and the surviving burglar (who was also convicted) later sued him

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/2074077.stm

here's the farmers wikipedia page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Martin_%28farmer%29

here's where the shot burglar got legal aid to sue the farmer

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2003/sep/22/tonymartin.ukcrime

and here's how they handle things in The Lone Star State

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1571096/Texan-hero-shoots-and-kills-burglars.html

FreudianSlippers

Hogzy wrote: »

Im sure there MUST be a case out there (Definitely in the UK) where a homeowner intentionally harmed an intruder.
Although in this case the intruder may become the criminal/accused by definition.

there certainly are (but I don't have access to any materials at the moment).

Remember though (as I believe was previously mentioned) the initial intrusion can be considered an assault, so the homeowner would have to go beyond the threshold of self-defence and there are some subjective elements in play here.
You also need to consider whether your dealing with an intruder with a weapon etc.

Zambia

TheNewMe wrote: »

Here's one case from the UK - probably the best known - where a farmer was jailed for shooting two burglars and the surviving burglar (who was also convicted) later sued him

True but Tony Martin was asking for trouble by posessing an illegally held pump action shotgun. The case fits the bill but its not hard to convict a bloke for shooting someone in the back halfway out a window.

It is interesting to see the common factors of repeated burglaries prior to the event between this and the Nealy case. Plus the fact that despite the clear case where both went beyond reasonable and proportionate, they became cause celebres.

Esel

Zambia232 wrote: »

True but Tony Martin was asking for trouble by posessing an illegally held pump action shotgun. The case fits the bill but its not hard to convict a bloke for shooting someone in the back halfway out a window.

It is interesting to see the common factors of repeated burglaries prior to the event between this and the Nealy case. Plus the fact that despite the clear case where both went beyond reasonable and proportionate, they became cause celebres.

But here in Ireland, it proved impossible to convict Nally for killing Ward by shooting him twice (the second time when he was fleeing), battering him with a lump of wood, then throwing his body over a wall.

Reminds me of the old story (during English rule) when a judge in Limerick addressed the accused thus:

You have been found Not Guilty by a jury of your peers, and you may leave this court with no other slur on your character.

dermo88

I wonder why. Oh hold on.....

Not worth a ban..................

Holds tongue......................

Step away from the keyboard

Resist temptation

Deep breath dermo, deep breath.

Phew......think nice thoughts dermo, think nice thoughts. There are no cream crackers in KL. There are no cream crackers in KL.

Amen to that.

Zambia

My apologies Dermo I deleted the post as you displayed how far of topic Nealy can bring us.