COMPENSATION
Compensation
Success is more likely in civil court
By JOHN HUNTER
LOCAL criminal lawyers believe the Belfast court hearing the Omagh bomb compensation case, will be bound to set the required evidence level higher than that usually applied in civil injuries cases. As a result, the claimants' difficulties in proving their allegations against five named men, will increase. This is because of the seriousness of the charges, which if adequate evidence was available, would normally be brought in a criminal court, and carry a life-imprisonment penalty. However, in the Omagh case, there have been not been prosecutions, because the authorities do not believe that evidence reaches the required criminal level of "beyond reasonable doubt".
Instead, the victims relatives have decided to take a personal civil case for compensation, because the standard of evidence required there is considerably lower than in a criminal court. The standard required in a civil case is "on the balance of probabilities", and success brings compensation, not imprisonment. Put very crudely in percentage terms, beyond reasonable doubt means roughly over 90pc sure of guilt, while on the balance of probabilities might reduce itself to somewhere well beyond 50pc sure, but considerably lower than 90pc.
In theory, therefore, claimants success is more likely in a civil court, and this is the key to the current Omagh case, in which writs were served last week.
Normally, civil cases for compensation follow successful criminal prosecutions for injury or murder, but in recent years, the civil route has been used successfully in several notable cases, where available evidence did not come up to the necessary criminal prosecution level.
One such case, which the Omagh relatives London lawyers point to, involved the family of murdered Englishwoman, Joan Francisco, whose boyfriend was suspected of her killing. Police had insufficient evidence for a criminal prosecution, but her family sued for civil court compensation, four years ago. During the hearing, new forensic evidence emerged, which finally resulted in the boyfriend also being criminally prosecuted, convicted and sentenced to life in prison.
But, significantly, in the Francisco case, because unproven allegations of murder were involved, the court called for a standard of evidence more tightly-drawn than the usual "balance of probabilities".
The Omagh hearing is likely to follow that precedent, say lawyers, but the evidential standard applying will still be notionally lower than the "beyond reasonable doubt" level of a criminal prosecution.
Should the victims relatives fail to prove their case in court, however, they could be liable for very considerable costs, payable to the men named.
Success is more likely in civil court
By JOHN HUNTER
LOCAL criminal lawyers believe the Belfast court hearing the Omagh bomb compensation case, will be bound to set the required evidence level higher than that usually applied in civil injuries cases. As a result, the claimants' difficulties in proving their allegations against five named men, will increase. This is because of the seriousness of the charges, which if adequate evidence was available, would normally be brought in a criminal court, and carry a life-imprisonment penalty. However, in the Omagh case, there have been not been prosecutions, because the authorities do not believe that evidence reaches the required criminal level of "beyond reasonable doubt".
Instead, the victims relatives have decided to take a personal civil case for compensation, because the standard of evidence required there is considerably lower than in a criminal court. The standard required in a civil case is "on the balance of probabilities", and success brings compensation, not imprisonment. Put very crudely in percentage terms, beyond reasonable doubt means roughly over 90pc sure of guilt, while on the balance of probabilities might reduce itself to somewhere well beyond 50pc sure, but considerably lower than 90pc.
In theory, therefore, claimants success is more likely in a civil court, and this is the key to the current Omagh case, in which writs were served last week.
Normally, civil cases for compensation follow successful criminal prosecutions for injury or murder, but in recent years, the civil route has been used successfully in several notable cases, where available evidence did not come up to the necessary criminal prosecution level.
One such case, which the Omagh relatives London lawyers point to, involved the family of murdered Englishwoman, Joan Francisco, whose boyfriend was suspected of her killing. Police had insufficient evidence for a criminal prosecution, but her family sued for civil court compensation, four years ago. During the hearing, new forensic evidence emerged, which finally resulted in the boyfriend also being criminally prosecuted, convicted and sentenced to life in prison.
But, significantly, in the Francisco case, because unproven allegations of murder were involved, the court called for a standard of evidence more tightly-drawn than the usual "balance of probabilities".
The Omagh hearing is likely to follow that precedent, say lawyers, but the evidential standard applying will still be notionally lower than the "beyond reasonable doubt" level of a criminal prosecution.
Should the victims relatives fail to prove their case in court, however, they could be liable for very considerable costs, payable to the men named.
Further Information
Publisher: SUNDAY LIFE
Ref: SL/131
Published Date: 28-Jul-02
Related Images
There have been no images archived for this article.