Jump to content

Kaiser Wull

First Team
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Kaiser Wull

  • Rank
    Dark Blue World

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. In fairness, Italian generals could at least rustle up a decent pasta dish and a good cup of coffee whilst plotting their surrender. Ours are useless, irremediably fucking useless.
  2. The value of a claim depends on several factors which will vary from individual to individual. The first of these relates to the injury sustained by and the effect of it. In cases of sexual abuse, psychological injury is usually far more significant than any physical injury sustained. The effects of abuse on a person's mental health can have lifelong effects (such as an inability to form and maintain relationships, self harming, substance abuse, depression etc.) which require ongoing treatment. To prove this, specialist medical evidence will be led on behalf of the victim. The Defender will usually also have the victim examined by experts instructed by them, the opinion of whom may be quite different from that of those instructed by the claimant. In such a 'battle of the experts', the court decides which evidence is to be preferred. But that's not all. The effect of the injury may also have resulted in the victim sustaining probable financial loss. For example, the victim may have given up the chance of a career as a football player. The victim may also have encountered difficulty in finding and holding down employment and thereby been deprived of earning a reasonable income. These losses are not assumed and have to be proven. It's not an exact science in cases of this sort but it's possible to paint a reasonably good picture of what the victim's life and career would probably had looked like but for the abuse. Needless to say,the Defender would probably choose to challenge this as well. No two victims are the same, though, and that holds true for the extent to which the effects of abuse have affected them and, therefore, the amount of compensation payable to each of them.
  3. The discussion was about the case currently proceeding at the All Scotland Personal Injury Court, in which there is only one complainer. As I explained, what happens in that case may or may not have an impact on other cases. Every claim is considered on its own merits. So whilst it's helpful to have several claimants all saying similar things, that doesn't mean that the court is bound to - or will - accept the evidence of each individual claimant. The other thing to add is that Torbett's convictions are admissible as evidence in civil court cases. That means that if he was convicted of abusing X in a a certain way on a certain date and at a certain place, X need not prove those particular facts before the civil court. ETA: As I see it, the main issue in any civil cases brought by Torbett''s victims against celtic would probably be a legal one revolving around the relationships between celtic and the Boys Club and celtic and Jim Torbett, so I would expect that much of the evidence heard by the court would focus on the nature of those relationships.
  4. That's not quite how it works. In a criminal case, every material fact must be corroborated. However, sexual abuse/sexual assault cases often come down to the word of the alleged victim against that of the alleged perpetrator. Ergo no corroboration. The Moorov case introduced the concept that separate crimes in which there is only witness and no other form of corroboration but which are similar in time, fact and character can corroborate one another. It was used in the recent Torbett case. The need for corroboration in civil cases, such as an action in which damages are sought, was abolished by the Civil Evidence (Scotland) Act 1988. It is, of course, always better to have corroboration in civil cases but it's not essential.
  5. Civil cases of this type are about liability rather than guilt. There are a number of reasons why a judge or jury could refuse to find that a defender is liable, not all of which have relevance outside of that particular case. For example, a judge or jury may not believe the evidence of a claimant that he or she was abused. If so, that doesn't mean that the court would not believe someone else who brought a case against the same defender on the same grounds. Each case would turn on its own facts. Then again, the court may rule against a claimant because he or she doesn't have a case in law. That would be relevant to other, similar cases if they were being argued on exactly the same evidence and legal basis. So the short answer is that the outcome of the case scheduled to go ahead in May (assuming it goes the distance) may or may not be relevant to other cases brought by victims of Torbett. It's not likely to affect claims brought by people alleging that they were abused by McCafferty, who was a celtic employee.
  6. Exactly. It wouldn't come under the label of 'compensation' but I expect it would be identifiable nonetheless.
  7. I can't see this being swept under the carpet. Here's a few reasons why: i. Claimants have to agree to settle on a liability not admitted/non-disclosure basis. We don't know if any or all of them would be willing to do so. It could be that some insist on a public apology as part of a settlement deal. ii. This is now a very public matter. People will ask questions if these claims were suddenly dropped. iii. There's a case already proceeding in the All Scotland Personal Injury Court. celtic are fighting that one. Might they also want to fight the other cases? They may believe that they have no legal liability to compensate Torbett's victims. iv. More claims seem likely, particularly if McCafferty is convicted. What starts as a trickle could end up as a flood. v. Settling claims can be a very expensive business and has to be accounted for.
  8. The job of a litigation lawyer is to achieve the best result for his client(s) without exposing them to the risks of litigation. And that means using whatever leverage is available in order to push the other side into negotiating an acceptable settlement. That's all he's doing here; he's got the ear of the media in this case so he may as well use that to his clients's advantage.
  9. The genie's out of the bottle now, so it's difficult for them to settle without being seen to have admitted liability even if settlement was made expressly on an ex-gratia, no liability basis. Besides, at least some of the claimants might want to have their day in court or be willing to settle only if a public apology is made. And let's not rule out the possibility that celtic might want to have their day in court. They've thus far contested the case being run by Digby Brown, so it'll be interesting to see if that one goes the distance.
  10. This is not about point scoring, nor should it be. Rather, it's about justice. Justice in the form of recognition and redress for those whose lives have been damaged as a result of childhood abuse; justice in the form of criminal punishment for those who committed that abuse; and justice, in whatever legal form is appropriate, that sees to it that anyone who failed in their duties of care by turning a blind eye to that abuse or sweeping it under a convenient carpet does not escape the consequences of their acts or omissions.
  11. Another of Torbett's victims is already pursuing celtic in the All Scotland Personal Injury Court, but he's represented by Digby Brown rather than Thompsons.
  12. I doubt that the police will now hold records going back to 1990, particularly in relation to cases that did not result in prosecutions being brought.
  • Create New...