Woman sueing her rapist.

[Eldred]

LONDON (Reuters) - The Law Lords are due to decide next week whether an elderly victim can sue a rapist who went on to win millions of pounds on the lottery.

The woman, known as Mrs A, has taken her case to the highest court in the country after she was told that too much time had lapsed for her to bring an action.

Iorworth Hoare, dubbed the "Lotto rapist" by the press, had no money when he was jailed for life at Leeds Crown Court in 1989 for the attempted rape of Mrs A.

But in 2004 he won 7 million pounds after buying a ticket during day release from prison shortly before being freed on parole.

Mrs A, who cannot be named for legal reasons, argued that Hoare should be made to pay for his "violent and disgusting sexual assault" that had left her mentally scarred.

She was 59 when Hoare attacked her as she walked in a Leeds park in broad daylight in 1988.

She had not sued for damages at the time of Hoare's imprisonment because she had been told his lack of funds would have made it worthless.

She had been awarded 5,000 pounds from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board.





I hope she can sue the bastard and nail him for every pound he wins.

[Gidan]

I find it interesting that she is only suing him now because he has $$. If the issue was truely about her mental distress, why didn't she sue to begin with? She even said it. She didn't sue because he was broke, now that he has $$ its time to get the $$ that will make her all better.

[Gypsiyee]

yeah, I really doubt this is about her mental distress and more about the money. Whether she was told it was worthless or not, the action should've been taken to take anything he had if it was for mental distress. Whether it's 1 dollar or a million, taking anything is enough for mental means - it would seem that she didn't sue back then because he didn't have enough money, not because she was mentally stressed. I wouldn't care if he had a penny, you bet your ass I'd take it at the time of my trial if I could.

However, the fact that they even allow criminals to collect from the lottery is pretty disgusting to me. To me it should be regarded as a privilege; just because the chance of winning is so rare doesn't mean that anyone convicted of that sort of crime should be allowed any chance at the winnings.

[Martrae]

In a case like this you sue as a form of revenge. Suing before he had any money would only have lined her lawyers pockets and not assuaged her need to hurt him back. Suing him now serves a purpose.

[Zanchief]

However, the fact that they even allow criminals to collect from the lottery is pretty disgusting to me. To me it should be regarded as a privilege; just because the chance of winning is so rare doesn't mean that anyone convicted of that sort of crime should be allowed any chance at the winnings.

Well I dont see why not. On average they are just throwing their money away.

[Tikker]

In a case like this you sue as a form of revenge. Suing before he had any money would only have lined her lawyers pockets and not assuaged her need to hurt him back. Suing him now serves a purpose.

I can just seeing this have reverberations thru divorces everywhere~

[Gypsiyee]

In a case like this you sue as a form of revenge. Suing before he had any money would only have lined her lawyers pockets and not assuaged her need to hurt him back. Suing him now serves a purpose.

I can just seeing this have reverberations thru divorces everywhere~

agreed

suing him back then and taking what little he had would've accomplished the same sense of revenge. taking a million or taking a pot that he pisses in, if its all he has you take all he has *when your time is due.* You don't wait 20+ years and say oh well he has money now, time to pay. The suing now is a complete selfish act and does nothing but fatten her pockets, which is all good and well but if shes going to sue dont think for a second that its for any other reason but that.

[Martrae]

Oh I completely agree it's about lining her coffin, but that doesn't detract from what I said earlier either.

There's no point in trying to take the 'pot he pisses in' if your assailant is below a certain income level. You would get nothing but lawyers fees since items necessary for living are protected. It's much the same with our bankruptcy laws. They can force you to dispose of items above a certain dollar amount but below that you are protected from seizure.

Of course, I'm basing all this on US law and not British.

[Harrison]

I don't see why he's not dead.