SMcoolJ Posted January 20, 2017 Share Posted January 20, 2017 On 18/01/2017 at 2:36 PM, aaid said: Criminal Law and Civil Law are two completely different things. There's a good summary of the differences here. http://www.inbrief.co.uk/legal-system/difference-between-civil-criminal-law/ Not to be confused with civil law in terms of a jurisdictional template i.e. as opposed to common law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grim Jim Posted January 20, 2017 Share Posted January 20, 2017 On 18/01/2017 at 3:13 PM, scoobydoo said: How does 'not proven' sit then? On 18/01/2017 at 3:25 PM, adamntg said: Where the jury think you did it but there is not enough admissible evidence to prove you reasonable doubt. Way I heard it was that once upon a time in Scotland you had just Proven or Not Proven as the possible outcomes of a jury trial. However, one day a jury insisted on Not Guilty (as in England) and the judge accepted it. So a jury in Scotland can now return Not Proven or Not Guilty with no difference in law ...just a snidey wee wink. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stocky Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 (edited) Goodwillie Gives up football to concentrate on appeal... http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15046561.Former_Scotland_International_David_Goodwillie_quits_football_to_concentrate_on_appeal_against_rape_ruling/ Strange as I read the 2 Footballers had made an out of court offer of 115.000 , the lassie said no, she wanted 500.000 and ended up with 100,000 which she says will most;y be swallowed up by legal fees, but is OK with it as it vindictes her. If an offer was made, why appeal? Edited January 25, 2017 by stocky Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SMcoolJ Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 5 minutes ago, stocky said: Goodwillie Gives up football to concentrate on appeal... http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15046561.Former_Scotland_International_David_Goodwillie_quits_football_to_concentrate_on_appeal_against_rape_ruling/ Strange as I read the 2 Footballers had made an out of court offer of 115.000 , the lassie said no, she wanted 500.000 and ended up with 100,000 which she says will most;y be swallowed up by legal fees, but is OK with it as it vindictes her. If an offer was made, why appeal? The offer was presumably made to make this while thing go away (this is ot an admission of guilt). The lassie rejected the offer presumably because she thought she could get more (on advice from her counsel - not suggesting she was just after money). The actual ruling is a little strange - unreliable witnesses, one party being to drunk to give consent but the other not drunk enough to not know what they were doing? The Court can't use any previous offers in bargaining or making judgement. They are appealing the judgment, not the fine - both have now given up football to pursue the appeal. I can see this being overturned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaid Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 13 minutes ago, SMcoolJ said: The offer was presumably made to make this while thing go away (this is ot an admission of guilt). The lassie rejected the offer presumably because she thought she could get more (on advice from her counsel - not suggesting she was just after money). The actual ruling is a little strange - unreliable witnesses, one party being to drunk to give consent but the other not drunk enough to not know what they were doing? The Court can't use any previous offers in bargaining or making judgement. They are appealing the judgment, not the fine - both have now given up football to pursue the appeal. I can see this being overturned. On what basis do you think it will be overturned? The judge found that Goodwillie and Robertson were unreliable witnesses. The victim, on the contrary he found to be "cogent, persuavise and compelling". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SMcoolJ Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 (edited) 12 minutes ago, aaid said: On what basis do you think it will be overturned? The judge found that Goodwillie and Robertson were unreliable witnesses. The victim, on the contrary he found to be "cogent, persuavise and compelling". Just having read the case I found some of it strange. I believe the upstairs neighbour (of flat where the "incident occurred) also heard "stuff" going on that matched Goodwillie's story but this was dismissed because the actual flat owner had his girlfriend in the night before and the judge thought the neighbour was perhaps getting confused. This and my earlier point that one party was unreliable yet not too drunk to know what was going on, while the other is reliable but far too drunk to give consent. I could very well be wrong but i just don't think this is finished. Edited January 25, 2017 by SMcoolJ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larky Masher Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 5 hours ago, SMcoolJ said: Just having read the case I found some of it strange. I believe the upstairs neighbour (of flat where the "incident occurred) also heard "stuff" going on that matched Goodwillie's story but this was dismissed because the actual flat owner had his girlfriend in the night before and the judge thought the neighbour was perhaps getting confused. This and my earlier point that one party was unreliable yet not too drunk to know what was going on, while the other is reliable but far too drunk to give consent. I could very well be wrong but i just don't think this is finished. It looks like Robertson's and Goodwillie's careers are finished. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SMcoolJ Posted January 26, 2017 Share Posted January 26, 2017 12 hours ago, Larky Masher said: It looks like Robertson's and Goodwillie's careers are finished. Both left respective clubs to focus on the appeal apparently. Not sure how much truth in that or if just a convenient cover story for both being punted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaid Posted January 26, 2017 Share Posted January 26, 2017 5 hours ago, SMcoolJ said: Both left respective clubs to focus on the appeal apparently. Not sure how much truth in that or if just a convenient cover story for both being punted. The latter I would bet. I'd imagine that in both cases they'd want to be focused on working to raise cash to support any appeal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RenfrewBlue Posted January 26, 2017 Share Posted January 26, 2017 3 hours ago, aaid said: The latter I would bet. I'd imagine that in both cases they'd want to be focused on working to raise cash to support any appeal. Tend to agree. They would be looking to keep any income streams they had going with a 6 figure bill to pay. They've been sacked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishcumnock Posted January 27, 2017 Share Posted January 27, 2017 But your honour av nae joab ,naebody wants to touch me and av blew aw ma dosh,can a pay it at £5a week? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
euan2020 Posted January 27, 2017 Share Posted January 27, 2017 17 hours ago, RenfrewBlue said: Tend to agree. They would be looking to keep any income streams they had going with a 6 figure bill to pay. They've been sacked. would they be able to sack them for a civil case ? not sure how they are able to break the contract here - not thinking on any case law here, just questioning out loud . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sbcmfc Posted January 27, 2017 Share Posted January 27, 2017 56 minutes ago, euan2020 said: would they be able to sack them for a civil case ? not sure how they are able to break the contract here - not thinking on any case law here, just questioning out loud . I'd guess it was mutual consent? Club have offered them the opportunity to leave rather than sack them and they didn't want to sit it out to see how it panned out so accepted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RenfrewBlue Posted January 27, 2017 Share Posted January 27, 2017 58 minutes ago, euan2020 said: would they be able to sack them for a civil case ? not sure how they are able to break the contract here - not thinking on any case law here, just questioning out loud . Might have been in the contract they gave him as this has been running for some time now. It would have been prudent of the club to protect themselves like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
euan2020 Posted January 27, 2017 Share Posted January 27, 2017 8 minutes ago, RenfrewBlue said: Might have been in the contract they gave him as this has been running for some time now. It would have been prudent of the club to protect themselves like that. agreed - i was thinking that as well I'm sure i have read in past, companies having to sack people for not turning up for work, when they were in jail, cos that was their option, rather than the conviction Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaid Posted January 27, 2017 Share Posted January 27, 2017 31 minutes ago, euan2020 said: agreed - i was thinking that as well I'm sure i have read in past, companies having to sack people for not turning up for work, when they were in jail, cos that was their option, rather than the conviction I had some experience of this several years ago. A guy in one of the other parts of the department I worked in was arrested and charged for child pornography under operation ore. As I was part of the departmental management team, I was aware of what was going on but not directly involved. Without going into the details, we all wanted him to be sacked but the lawyers views were that while there were a number of individual acts of misconduct insofar as his employment was concerned, they didn't add up to gross misconduct. The only hope we had was that when it came to court he would either get a custodial sentence so that he would be unable to fulfil the terms of his contract - as he'd be in the jail - and we could sack him on that basis. Unfortunately, while he was found guilty he only got a fine and community service. The worst part was having to look at him every day when he came back to work knowing what he'd been up to - he was also a pretty unpleasant character regardless - and not being able to say anything. Especially when - knowing the full story - you'd hear friends of his saying things like "he got sent a couple of unsolicited emails and that's where they came from and he'd thought they'd deleted them". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewolf_1980 Posted January 27, 2017 Share Posted January 27, 2017 On 26/01/2017 at 9:23 AM, SMcoolJ said: Both left respective clubs to focus on the appeal apparently. Not sure how much truth in that or if just a convenient cover story for both being punted. Considering Plymouth Argyle re-employed Luke McCormick after he was jailed, it's perhaps likely that Goodwillie did indeed suggest the cancellation of his own contract. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orraloon Posted January 27, 2017 Share Posted January 27, 2017 2 hours ago, aaid said: I had some experience of this several years ago. A guy in one of the other parts of the department I worked in was arrested and charged for child pornography under operation ore. As I was part of the departmental management team, I was aware of what was going on but not directly involved. Without going into the details, we all wanted him to be sacked but the lawyers views were that while there were a number of individual acts of misconduct insofar as his employment was concerned, they didn't add up to gross misconduct. The only hope we had was that when it came to court he would either get a custodial sentence so that he would be unable to fulfil the terms of his contract - as he'd be in the jail - and we could sack him on that basis. Unfortunately, while he was found guilty he only got a fine and community service. The worst part was having to look at him every day when he came back to work knowing what he'd been up to - he was also a pretty unpleasant character regardless - and not being able to say anything. Especially when - knowing the full story - you'd hear friends of his saying things like "he got sent a couple of unsolicited emails and that's where they came from and he'd thought they'd deleted them". We would have sacked him anyway. Let him take us to a tribunal if he wanted to go down that route. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaid Posted January 27, 2017 Share Posted January 27, 2017 39 minutes ago, Orraloon said: We would have sacked him anyway. Let him take us to a tribunal if he wanted to go down that route. That was our - departmental management - view but the lawyers didn't agree and senior management didn't have the bottle. It was a FTSE 100 company, so I suspect they didn't want the bad publicity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.