You are on page 1of 2

John’s Theory Injured parties of criminal offences should consider suing the perpetrators for what surely must

be a "linked" breach of the injured party’s human rights? The standard of proof in such a "linked" Civil Action in a Civil Court against a perpetrator would be "on the balance of probabilities". Remember, if someone pleads guilty or is convicted at trial in a Criminal Court, (and for the sake of this thread, ends up in Prison) the conviction would have been on the basis of the more stringent standard of proof, which in criminal matters in a Criminal Court, is "beyond reasonable doubt". Like with motoring offences etc, such a guilty plea/conviction in a Criminal Court would automatically lead to a win in a "linked" Civil case. Where Criminal convictions are cited in "linked" Civil cases in Civil Courts, the case is effectively won, by default, and without considering the evidence further because the evidence has already been heard and tested, or even accepted to a higher standard at a Criminal Court. An example of this would be where a motorist is convicted or pleaded guilty in The Magistrates' or Crown Court, which are Criminal Courts of, say, dangerous driving. A Civil Court dealing with a subsequent and "linked" claim for compensation arising out of the dangerous driving, would virtually rubber stamp a Civil case for compensation against the motorist on the basis of his prior "linked" Criminal conviction which existed and showed that the evidence against the perpetrator had already been heard and tested or accepted by the perpetrator. My theory assumes that perpetrators and injured parties alike both have Human Rights. Additionally my theory relies on "linking" the criminally convicted perpetrator and his/her crime to the breach of Human Rights of the injured party. I say this is a compelling conclusion, must follow logically and, as Lawyers say, Res Ipsa Loquitor- the connection is so obvious that it speaks for itself without the need for examination and discussion. A perpetrator that does something so serious to an injured party that he/she, the perpetrator, is sent to prison, must in doing so have breached the injured party’s human rights and therefore be liable to a claim against him or her in the Civil Courts.

If there was a Human Rights action for compensation, by an injured party, in a Civil Court, arising out of a “linked” Criminal conviction of a perpetrator, then like with the

dangerous driving example, and the principle that establishes, there could be no double jeopardy argument put forward by the perpetrator, and therefore no breach of his/her own Human Rights. If prisoners have Human Rights, which of course they should have, then so must their victims Actually I am amazed that Solicitors haven't picked up on this sure fire money making scheme...yet. "Human Rights Direct", no win, no fee etc. John