Burglar to sue...

[Jonny_Darko]

From AOL today...

THE burglar shot and injured by Tony Martin has won the right to sue the jailed farmer for damages.

Brendon Fearon, 33, wants to sue Martin for a reported £15,000 following his wounding during a break-in at the farmer's home in Emneth Hungate, Norfolk, in August 1999.

Fearon claims that his injuries, which included a leg wound, have affected his ability to enjoy sex and martial arts and that he has suffered post-traumatic stress.

During the burglary, Martin shot dead Fearon's accomplice, 16-year-old Fred Barras, of Newark, Nottinghamshire.

Fearon was jailed for his part in the raid on Martin's home and has more than 30 criminal convictions.

He had been granted legal aid to mount his claim for damages, but at an earlier hearing at Nottingham County Court, in April, a judge threw out the application.

Now that decision has been overturned.

Fearon, of Newark, was told that he had failed to provide sufficient evidence to support his claims that he has been unable to work because of his injuries.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If he wins, that's it. I'm leaving this country and joining a monastery in Tibet. This isn't the kind of world I want to live in, or the kind of society that deserves anything more than the hellhole it's slowly becoming.

 

[Embattle]

Heard about it today, found it partly funny and expected tbh.

 

[icemaiden]

tbh I think that story just highlights how shit the legal system in Britain is these days.

 

[ECA]

Quite frankly Tony Martin only went down because he pursued them and continued shooting.

I think ANY person comitting a criminal act should automatically lose any right to litigation. That way if the householder etc gives em a bit too much of a kicking they can still get done but the spacker criminal will learn his fucking lesson.

 

[icemaiden]

From what i can gather on the story Tony Martin lost the plot when the burglary happened because it was happening constantly, and being a farmer he had a gun, and shot the guys. Fair enough maybes he should've fired once and stopped, but the circumstances are dodgy imo. As for people commiting a criminal act losing right to litigation - well thats just crap quite frankly, ppl do illegal things for all sorts of reasons, that doesn't mean they should loose basic rights.
The whole Tony Martin case is way too complicated to say who is right/wrong in the first place so it should be dropped by both sides - it's gone far enough me thinx.

 

[Jonny_Darko]

And the infuriating thing is that not one non-criminal person in the country agrees that this kind of thing is correct. Do the views of "the people" not mean anything any more?

What logic-evading world do these judges live in? They should not have been in that house to begin with. Anything after that is irrelevent. End. Of. Story.

 

[Embattle]

I think you'll find even those who generally thought he should go to jail for a while would have trouble with this action.

 

[Damini]

http://damini.bleedingego.co.uk/index.php?i=9&nd=1

That's what I had to say about it from a while back.

 

[mank!]

Originally posted by Jonny_Darko
Fearon claims that his injuries, which included a leg wound, have affected his ability to enjoy sex and martial arts and that he has suffered post-traumatic stress.

Poor chap. How can you be sure that's not from taking it up the arse in the showers at prison?

 

[The Kingpin]

Pfft, if i found someone trying to rob my house, i would proceed to kick the hell out of him, not try to sneak up to the phone, then phone the police, by the time they arrive, he has add off with my damn TV.

 

[tris-]

err saying you dont know who is right and wrong is total fucking bollox, should the robbers of been robbing his house in the first place? if i go rape someones wife and the husband smashes my head in with a golf club, do you think its fine and dandy if i sue him for giving me brain damage?

 

[Scooba Da Bass]

Did no one bother to read the story beyond the OMGS BURGLAR IS GETTING AWAY WITH THINGS!?!?!

The judge said he basically had to let it go through due to Human Rights laws, the case will be used to examine the wider situation of Criminals being allowed to sue, and the government are looking to prevent this being possible.

I guess this is what happens when your news comes from The Metro.

 

[nath]

FFS SHUIT UP U NOOB.

Metros 2.5 pages of news and 20 pages of utter horse shit edukates me abot the world and ur jus jelos becos u dont understand it!

 

[Jonty]

Hi guys

I hardly ever post in the general forum, so be gentle Anyway, Scooba is right, so please just take a step back from all the sensational headlines and appreciate that this is sometimes how the law works. As Parliamentary time is limited, the Government, or private members, are often unable to pass law on specific issues such as this. Instead, the common law is used, whereby a case is allowed to proceed which deals with a repugnant issue (in this case, the right to claim damages whilst engaged in an illegal enterprise at the time of the injury). The case will gradually work its way up through the courts heirarchy until it reaches a sufficiently senior court, such as the Court of Appeal or House of Lords. A decision can then be made which will be binding on all lower courts though a system of precedent.

What the sensationalist reports neglect to say is that there is already a rule in the law of tort which seems to suggest that a person engaged in an illegal act may be precluded from a civil claim (the so-called 'ex turpi causa non oritur actio' rule ('no action can arise from a base cause')).

So whilst it may seem terrible that any person, let alone a supposedly learned judge, could allow such a case to be heard, just have a little faith in the legal system. It may take a years yet, but once the case is heard, a binding precedent will be created based on the above rule which will resolve any potentially repugant situations such as this.

Kind Regards

 

[Ash!]

The Irony of it is that the scum bag wants to sue for loss of earnings. FFS why was the little scrote robbing houses. Fuckin vermin

 

[Damini]

Originally posted by Scooba Da Bass
Did no one bother to read the story beyond the OMGS BURGLAR IS GETTING AWAY WITH THINGS!?!?!

The judge said he basically had to let it go through due to Human Rights laws, the case will be used to examine the wider situation of Criminals being allowed to sue, and the government are looking to prevent this being possible.

I guess this is what happens when your news comes from The Metro.

It's just the sheer proposterousness of the situation that gets my blood boiling though. This isn't an idea Fearon has personally come up with (he can hardly talk whole sentences, let alone spout legal jargon) so it's just lawyers trying to find ways to tear the system upside down and rattle the piggy bank some more. It's just the whole concept of hypothetical earnings for a career he'd never have embarked on, and he hasn't actually given up on crime, and there should just be some "Don't be a dick" clause somewhere along the line.

 

[SilverHood]

something like

by breaking the law, you forfeit the chance to sue for dmgs, etc

would be nice

 

[Scooba Da Bass]

Originally posted by Damini
It's just the sheer proposterousness of the situation that gets my blood boiling though. This isn't an idea Fearon has personally come up with (he can hardly talk whole sentences, let alone spout legal jargon) so it's just lawyers trying to find ways to tear the system upside down and rattle the piggy bank some more. It's just the whole concept of hypothetical earnings for a career he'd never have embarked on, and he hasn't actually given up on crime, and there should just be some "Don't be a dick" clause somewhere along the line.

This "Don't be a dick clause" is what is going to be created by the case. Regardless of how you feel about the subject matter this is a good thing, and the sooner it's sorted the better.

 

[Damini]

I'll only believe it when it happens to be honest.

 

[Daffeh]

u say have a little faith in the legal system, but how much tax payer money will be wasted on this charade?

 

[Clowneh!]

do you pay taxes daf?

 

[Scooba Da Bass]

Originally posted by Daffeh
u say have a little faith in the legal system, but how much tax payer money will be wasted on this charade?

Heaven forbid that tax payers money is spent closing a loophole in the system that is seen unanamously as a bad thing!

 

[Cdr]

I can safely say from experience - the law does indeed suck.

And Jonty - spot on, where were you the last three years of my law degree dammit?

Although, he could take it to the ECHR (European Court of Human Rights), after any House of Lords decision, regardless of the outcome. And if they find a breach of his basic human rights, as set out in the European Convention on Human Rights, then he'll win and Martin will have to pay up.

Being part of Europe we now have to look beyond statute and common law, to this so-called 'higher law'. European law will always take priority over that of the member states.

 

[Krazeh]

The guy was breaking into someones house, i'm sorry but at the point he should forfeit all basic human rights, he clearly has no respect for anybody else's rights so why should anyone give a fuck about his?
Make prison the most hellish environment people have ever visited and i'm sure u'd seriously cut down the number of repeat offenders and it'd definitely make people think twice before going out and commiting an offence.

 

[lynchet]

Yes its going to cost money but as Scooba and Jonty have pointed out its the way the law works.

Everyone who is saying it shouldnt be allowed etc, what do you want instead ?? OK you can argue that these laws should have been sorted out years ago but they weren't and now they are being, which is good.

The way English laws works is by precedant ---- and it is still probably quicker than the extremely slow process a bill goes through parliament.

The only way it would not happen is a prime minister/minister etc stepping in and saying no---- this would be utterly illegal and wrong --- right back to Magna Carta it has been a fundamental tenet that everyone, including rulers, are bound by laws and cannot act outside of them ----- and for those saying "ah yes but in this case" --- precedant again ! and its a dangerous thing used wrongly !

 

[Jonny_Darko]

Precedent does confuse me to be honest. If a wrong decision is made the first time it sets the path for that wrong decision to be made each subsequent time too. Precedent is arse. Each case should be judged on it's unique facts, as no two cases are the same.

 

[Jonny_Darko]

Originally posted by Damini
http://damini.bleedingego.co.uk/index.php?i=9&nd=1

That's what I had to say about it from a while back.

Nice read

 

[nath]

Originally posted by Jonny_Darko
Precedent does confuse me to be honest. If a wrong decision is made the first time it sets the path for that wrong decision to be made each subsequent time too. Precedent is arse. Each case should be judged on it's unique facts, as no two cases are the same.

But you're complaining that he even was allowed to sue.. surely if we go by a case by case basis, he has to be allowed to sue, once he does, it'll be judged and chucked out. (probably)

 

[lynchet]

Precedant can be dangerous, which is why cases have to be considered so carefully -- and of course precedant doesnt mean you HAVE to do the same thing next time, its only as the number of cases stack up that it becomes harder and harder to go against it.

But as I said what is the alternative to the current situation. Under current law a victim has the right to sue --- the law can be changed but that takes time, and until or unless that happens the case must go ahead and we have to assume the courts will be sensible.

Now if they rule in his favour THEN we are in trouble !

 

[Cdr]

I dont think we have any fear of judges in this country finding in his favour, as they take policy reasons into consideration, and whats good for society (which is how new law is made above that of the statute). What we must be worried about are judges in Europe, especially if he's pleading a breach of his human rights.

One thing to remember about precendent is it only binds courts that are lower than the one in which it is set, but it is not limited to the House of Lords or Court of Appeal. So a precedent set in the High Court only binds those below it, and not above. But a higher court can rule against the precendent. So once you get to the House of Lords, what they say goes