Ken

Jan 30, 08 - 12:28 PM

Six year statute apparently busted by Lords Ruling

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7216895.stm

I'll have to check the Guardian which I bought today and see if they followed up on their initial coverage of one of those appeal cases from last November, but following on from the heavy sentences on one Irish offender, I'd say good news for survivors today in general!

Ken

Jan 30th, 2008 - 12:31 PM

Re: Six year statute apparently busted by Lords Ruling

Whilst I believe that it's good news, suing a council and suing an individual offender are two different ball games. I don't need my abuser's money, personally but I can see why Hoare's victim(s) would want to shame him.

§tèvë

Jan 30th, 2008 - 12:34 PM

Re: Six year statute apparently busted by Lords Ruling

Heres the full story

I know Kevin, hence the story before it went to press

Lotto rape victim wins hope for thousands
Frances Gibb, Legal Editor

One woman’s quest for justice against the so-called Lotto rapist ends in victory today, with a court ruling that paves the way for thousands of sex abuse victims to sue their attackers for compensation, The Times has learnt.

In a landmark ruling, five law lords are expected to sweep away the current bar on historic claims being brought for sexual assault. Until now victims have been precluded by law from bringing a claim more than six years after an attack or, in child abuses case, more than six years after reaching majority at 18.

Their ruling now means that a woman known only as Mrs A can seek to claim compensation for attempted rape in Leeds in 1988 from her convicted attacker, Iorworth Hoare, who subsequently scooped £7 million on the lottery.

The much wider implication also paves the way for thousands of actions by victims of child sexual abuse to claim against their attackers or more likely their employers, such as local authorities if they were in care at the time of the attack.

‘I did not bring this case for the money – it is a fight for justice’

David Greenwood, the solicitor for Kevin Young – another key case heard along side that of Mrs A – estimates that there could be as many as 6000 child sex abuse cases in the pipeline.

The law lords are expected to to rule that in future, claims for sexual assault should be brought within three years, in line with other civil claims for damages.

But at the same time, they are expected to say that courts should have discretion to extend the period to permit older claims, whereas now the six-year bar is fixed.
Mrs A, 78, a former teacher, is expected to go back to the High Court to seek the right to bring a claim over the attack by Hoare in Roundhay Park, Leeds, in 1988. She received only £5,000 from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board after the brutal attack 19 years ago. The case, she says, is “not about money, but about a just result”.

Hoare had not been worth suing for compensation until he won £7 million with a Lotto Extra ticket while on day release from prison in 2004 where he was serving a life sentence for the attack on Mrs A and six other women he had assaulted previously.

Her later attempts to win the right to sue him in the High Court and Court of Appeal failed and she was ordered to pay Hoare £100,000 in legal fees because of the six-year time bar under the Limitation Act 1980.
Months after his win Hoare was released on parole, and lives in a house estimated to be worth £700,000 near Newcastle upon Tyne. Damien Crosse, a partner at DLA Piper and Mrs A’s solicitor, said at the time of the Lords’ hearing last November: “We want to see a change in the law to ensure Mrs A is fairly compensated for the damage and suffering she has had to endure as as a result of being attacked by Mr Hoare.

“My client and others like her should be able to gain justice through the civil courts and there is clearly an anomaly in the law as it stands that is preventing them from doing so.”

Kevin Young, another key case, is seeking compensation for being sexually assaulted by Neville Husband while the former was serving a short sentence at Medomsley Detention Centre in 1977.
Husband, who became a church minister after leaving the Prison Service, was jailed after admitting a series of horrific sex attacks on teenage boys.

Mr Young, of York, was one of the boys targeted by Husband and in April 2003 he lodged a claim against the Home Office, which was responsible for the detention centre. But it failed because of the lapse of time involved.

David Greenwood, his solicitor, of Jordans law firm in Wakefield, said: “This delay in speaking out is caused by the nature of the abuse itself. I hope that the law lords are able to see that the law needs to change, to achieve justice for these deserving claimants.”

Sarah Erwin-Jones, partner on the social care team at Browne Jacobson solicitor, which acted in three of the five appeals before the law lords, has said that a change in the law would have far-reaching implications.

In old cases where assaults were serious, the more likely it would be that courts would allow claims against convicted abusers to proceed, even when brought outside any time bar.

Ken

Jan 30th, 2008 - 12:41 PM

Re: Six year statute apparently busted by Lords Ruling

Nope, the Guardian story in November 07 referred to the Wandsworth school case, but I didn't know about the one named claimant, cheers for that Steve.

Since my attack also happened at a school and the guy is my age, it struck a chord but at least justice is on the way.

Jimbo

Jan 30th, 2008 - 1:12 PM

Re: Six year statute apparently busted by Lords Ruling

Just had mt brief on the phone, he is buzzing and so am I hehehehehe

Looks like I am back to court again

§tèvë

Feb 26th, 2008 - 4:56 PM

Law Of Limitation

At LONG last!!

The Government accepts that at the date of the petition the law of limitation on child abuse cases was very unsatisfactory. In brief, the law prevented victims of child abuse, who had reached 24 years of age, from suing the abuser, even though they could often still sue people responsible for the abuser's actions well after that date for their negligence in failing to prevent the abuse.

This is no longer the case because of the decision of the House of Lords in three appeal cases on 30 January 2008. The same limitation periods now apply to all these cases.

This change answers a significant criticism of the law of limitation made by the Law Commission in their 2001 report Limitation of Actions (Law Com 270). This report recommended a general overhaul of the Limitation Act 1980, which specifies the limitation periods for most types of private legal actions, such as breach of contract or claims in tort.

The Government accepted the Law Commission's recommendations in principle, subject to further work in certain areas, in July 2002.

This detailed examination of the impact has revealed several issues that need to be resolved. This work is taking longer that expected but is being pushed forward.

When it is complete the Government intends to consult on the content of a draft Bill to reform the law. For child abuse cases, the draft Bill will set out in legislation the effect of the House of Lords' decision.

§tèvë

Mar 11th, 2008 - 4:09 PM

Another update

The Government accepts that at the date of the petition the law of limitation as applied to child and other similar abuse cases was unsatisfactory. At that time, actions for trespass to the person which is the usual form of legal action taken by a victim against an abuser, were subject to a limitation period of six years from the event, so that, for example, victims of child abuse who were over 24 years of age could not sue their attacker.

This was particularly unfair to those victims who were unable to report or discuss their experiences for many years. By contrast, actions for negligence against a person responsible for the perpetrator (for example, an employer) could, in appropriate cases, be brought many years later.

This is no longer the case. Following a recent decision of the House of Lords, the limitation period for trespass to the person has been brought into line with that for other actions for personal injury. In general terms the relevant period is three years from the later of the date that the abuse occurred or the date on which the victim knows that he or she has good grounds to sue the abuser for the injury caused.

The court has a discretion to extend this period without limit in appropriate cases.

This change answers a significant criticism of the law of limitation made by the Law Commission in their 2001 report Limitation of Actions (Law Com 270).

This report recommended a general overhaul of the Limitation Act 1980, which specifies the limitation periods for most types of private legal actions, such as breach of contract or claims in tort. The Government accepted the Law Commission's recommendations in principle, subject to further work in certain areas, in July 2002. This detailed examination of the impact has revealed several issues that need to be resolved.

This work is taking longer that expected but is being pushed forward. When it is complete the Government intends to consult on the content of a draft Bill to reform the law.

For abuse and other similar cases, the draft Bill will set out in legislation the effect of the House of Lords' decision.

Author	Comment
Ken Jan 30, 08 - 12:28 PM	Six year statute apparently busted by Lords Ruling http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7216895.stm I'll have to check the Guardian which I bought today and see if they followed up on their initial coverage of one of those appeal cases from last November, but following on from the heavy sentences on one Irish offender, I'd say good news for survivors today in general!
Ken Jan 30th, 2008 - 12:31 PM	Re: Six year statute apparently busted by Lords Ruling Whilst I believe that it's good news, suing a council and suing an individual offender are two different ball games. I don't need my abuser's money, personally but I can see why Hoare's victim(s) would want to shame him.
§tèvë Jan 30th, 2008 - 12:34 PM	Re: Six year statute apparently busted by Lords Ruling Heres the full story I know Kevin, hence the story before it went to press Lotto rape victim wins hope for thousands Frances Gibb, Legal Editor One woman’s quest for justice against the so-called Lotto rapist ends in victory today, with a court ruling that paves the way for thousands of sex abuse victims to sue their attackers for compensation, The Times has learnt. In a landmark ruling, five law lords are expected to sweep away the current bar on historic claims being brought for sexual assault. Until now victims have been precluded by law from bringing a claim more than six years after an attack or, in child abuses case, more than six years after reaching majority at 18. Their ruling now means that a woman known only as Mrs A can seek to claim compensation for attempted rape in Leeds in 1988 from her convicted attacker, Iorworth Hoare, who subsequently scooped £7 million on the lottery. The much wider implication also paves the way for thousands of actions by victims of child sexual abuse to claim against their attackers or more likely their employers, such as local authorities if they were in care at the time of the attack. ‘I did not bring this case for the money – it is a fight for justice’ David Greenwood, the solicitor for Kevin Young – another key case heard along side that of Mrs A – estimates that there could be as many as 6000 child sex abuse cases in the pipeline. The law lords are expected to to rule that in future, claims for sexual assault should be brought within three years, in line with other civil claims for damages. But at the same time, they are expected to say that courts should have discretion to extend the period to permit older claims, whereas now the six-year bar is fixed. Mrs A, 78, a former teacher, is expected to go back to the High Court to seek the right to bring a claim over the attack by Hoare in Roundhay Park, Leeds, in 1988. She received only £5,000 from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board after the brutal attack 19 years ago. The case, she says, is “not about money, but about a just result”. Hoare had not been worth suing for compensation until he won £7 million with a Lotto Extra ticket while on day release from prison in 2004 where he was serving a life sentence for the attack on Mrs A and six other women he had assaulted previously. Her later attempts to win the right to sue him in the High Court and Court of Appeal failed and she was ordered to pay Hoare £100,000 in legal fees because of the six-year time bar under the Limitation Act 1980. Months after his win Hoare was released on parole, and lives in a house estimated to be worth £700,000 near Newcastle upon Tyne. Damien Crosse, a partner at DLA Piper and Mrs A’s solicitor, said at the time of the Lords’ hearing last November: “We want to see a change in the law to ensure Mrs A is fairly compensated for the damage and suffering she has had to endure as as a result of being attacked by Mr Hoare. “My client and others like her should be able to gain justice through the civil courts and there is clearly an anomaly in the law as it stands that is preventing them from doing so.” Kevin Young, another key case, is seeking compensation for being sexually assaulted by Neville Husband while the former was serving a short sentence at Medomsley Detention Centre in 1977. Husband, who became a church minister after leaving the Prison Service, was jailed after admitting a series of horrific sex attacks on teenage boys. Mr Young, of York, was one of the boys targeted by Husband and in April 2003 he lodged a claim against the Home Office, which was responsible for the detention centre. But it failed because of the lapse of time involved. David Greenwood, his solicitor, of Jordans law firm in Wakefield, said: “This delay in speaking out is caused by the nature of the abuse itself. I hope that the law lords are able to see that the law needs to change, to achieve justice for these deserving claimants.” Sarah Erwin-Jones, partner on the social care team at Browne Jacobson solicitor, which acted in three of the five appeals before the law lords, has said that a change in the law would have far-reaching implications. In old cases where assaults were serious, the more likely it would be that courts would allow claims against convicted abusers to proceed, even when brought outside any time bar.
Ken Jan 30th, 2008 - 12:41 PM	Re: Six year statute apparently busted by Lords Ruling Nope, the Guardian story in November 07 referred to the Wandsworth school case, but I didn't know about the one named claimant, cheers for that Steve. Since my attack also happened at a school and the guy is my age, it struck a chord but at least justice is on the way.
Jimbo Jan 30th, 2008 - 1:12 PM	Re: Six year statute apparently busted by Lords Ruling Just had mt brief on the phone, he is buzzing and so am I hehehehehe Looks like I am back to court again
§tèvë Feb 26th, 2008 - 4:56 PM	Law Of Limitation At LONG last!! The Government accepts that at the date of the petition the law of limitation on child abuse cases was very unsatisfactory. In brief, the law prevented victims of child abuse, who had reached 24 years of age, from suing the abuser, even though they could often still sue people responsible for the abuser's actions well after that date for their negligence in failing to prevent the abuse. This is no longer the case because of the decision of the House of Lords in three appeal cases on 30 January 2008. The same limitation periods now apply to all these cases. This change answers a significant criticism of the law of limitation made by the Law Commission in their 2001 report Limitation of Actions (Law Com 270). This report recommended a general overhaul of the Limitation Act 1980, which specifies the limitation periods for most types of private legal actions, such as breach of contract or claims in tort. The Government accepted the Law Commission's recommendations in principle, subject to further work in certain areas, in July 2002. This detailed examination of the impact has revealed several issues that need to be resolved. This work is taking longer that expected but is being pushed forward. When it is complete the Government intends to consult on the content of a draft Bill to reform the law. For child abuse cases, the draft Bill will set out in legislation the effect of the House of Lords' decision.
§tèvë Mar 11th, 2008 - 4:09 PM	Another update The Government accepts that at the date of the petition the law of limitation as applied to child and other similar abuse cases was unsatisfactory. At that time, actions for trespass to the person which is the usual form of legal action taken by a victim against an abuser, were subject to a limitation period of six years from the event, so that, for example, victims of child abuse who were over 24 years of age could not sue their attacker. This was particularly unfair to those victims who were unable to report or discuss their experiences for many years. By contrast, actions for negligence against a person responsible for the perpetrator (for example, an employer) could, in appropriate cases, be brought many years later. This is no longer the case. Following a recent decision of the House of Lords, the limitation period for trespass to the person has been brought into line with that for other actions for personal injury. In general terms the relevant period is three years from the later of the date that the abuse occurred or the date on which the victim knows that he or she has good grounds to sue the abuser for the injury caused. The court has a discretion to extend this period without limit in appropriate cases. This change answers a significant criticism of the law of limitation made by the Law Commission in their 2001 report Limitation of Actions (Law Com 270). This report recommended a general overhaul of the Limitation Act 1980, which specifies the limitation periods for most types of private legal actions, such as breach of contract or claims in tort. The Government accepted the Law Commission's recommendations in principle, subject to further work in certain areas, in July 2002. This detailed examination of the impact has revealed several issues that need to be resolved. This work is taking longer that expected but is being pushed forward. When it is complete the Government intends to consult on the content of a draft Bill to reform the law. For abuse and other similar cases, the draft Bill will set out in legislation the effect of the House of Lords' decision.