Landlady ordered to pay damages to serial rapist for clearing his flat after arrest

neverdespairgirl

paddy's_mum wrote: »

neverdespairgirl is quite right to correct my mistaken use of "CPS". Since I'm not usually guilty of "sheer ignorance", I do understand exactly what it means and what that body does. Please consider it as a 'slip of the tongue' since in post number 39, I used the accurate and considered term "public funds"


However, doesn't there come a time when commonsense can be applied to a situation in which passions can be expected to run very high? Would Cope's solicitor have done a better job if he had tried to negotiate a settlement figure (not that I know if he did or not) or was this a full on "we're gonna get you, landlord"!

If he got public funding for his case, that's what used to be called Legal Aid (and often still is, informally) and is now the Legal Services Commission doling it out.

If she'd offered a settlement of, say, £780, and he had refused it, she wouldn't have been liable for costs if he won less than that.

ShelfStacker_3

Can I just say that the number of people here who can think these things through and not just kneejerk a response whenever the word "rapist" comes anywhere near an issue has seriously restored my faith that not everyone in the UK is a Daily Mail-swallowing right wing loon? Thanks.

robpw2

the landlord in question knows the law and has chosen to break it so should have been punished
regardless of this persons crime !

robpw2

heres a question for those who belive that people who commit crimes should have no rights.

if the rapist had been murdered by a victims family member should that person who committed murder be prosecuted i mean the rapis has no rights .... or not ?


i think that no crime can be justified but using another wrong as basis

chewmylegoff

what baffles me is why she didn't settle it before it got to court. either she was pointlessly stubborn or she was extraordinarily badly advised.

robpw2

probably the latter maybe she thought she would win , maybe she is one of those people that belives a crime against someone who has committed a crime shouldnt be punishable

bitsnbytes

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

Right, so minimal damages for an unlawful eviction. She chose to fight it, instead of settling it, more fool her.

You maybe correct, however why is it that the rapist got a defence (possibly the top lawyers) paid for by the tax payers money and the landlady did not? If both broke the law, both should be treated as criminals and both should be entitled to the same level of legal aid.

I'd be perfectly happy with your argument if the rapist was paying for his defence from his pocket (preferably after being ordered to make a massive payout to the victims family). If the landlady chose to contest the charge, so did the rapist since he was already previously convicted in the 70s (from what I've read)

I'm sorry but I do believe the justice system is flawed and criminals do get away lightly. Drug users getting prescription drugs from NHS (paid for by the tax payers) is one example. The explanation given is if the NHS doesn't provide it, they will commit crimes. It's more like the government is scared of these bullies

Just my 2p :rolleyes:

And PS: as one other previous poster said, if I was the landlord I would want to get this scumbags stuff out of my house asap and carry out some spritiual cleansing of my property. Don't care if I'm hung for that, I just dont want his stuff lying around my house after he his convicted for destroying the life of an innocent girl :mad:

If the landlady does get into financial difficulties and possibly lose her property the rapist should be proud, after all he has successfully destroyed the lives of 2 women :mad:

Strapped

I agree with the poster who said that the LL's actions were wrong, but entirely human - the flat was above her hair/beauty salon where presumably she employs young girls so I'd imagine she wanted him gone asap. If only she'd taken legal advice though. And having got herself into this mess, she should've settled asap. She must be incredibly stubborn for it to have got to this stage (or her legal team very incompetent).

bitsnbytes

Excerpt from the article

Cope - who was living alone in the flat after moving out of the home he shared with his wife, Ann - was first jailed for rape for four years in 1976.
He received eight years for rape in 1979, five years in 1985 for indecent assault and another ten years for attempted rape in 1990.
He is currently serving a life sentence for attacking a 19-year-old woman on April 25, 2006.

His sentences don't even add up, 4 years in 1976 and yet he was charged again in 1979? He's spent more time in prision than outside (or I hope he has) for at least 5 reported incidents. Wonder if any credit/reference check was ever carried out on him before letting out the proprty :eek:
Another shocking thing is that he was initially given only 4 years for a rape? Wow, that seems awfully less to me. Recently I heard a news article over the radio where they said they might jail drivers who were caught using their mobile phones or even fiddling with the stereo for 2 years. That's the same police who say that there is no room in jails for criminals :rolleyes:

tbs624

bitsnbytes wrote: »

You maybe correct, however why is it that the rapist got a defence (possibly the top lawyers) paid for by the tax payers money and the landlady did not? If both broke the law, both should be treated as criminals and both should be entitled to the same level of legal aid.

Two reasons:
1. You must be financially eligible for legal aid
2. Legal aid is not generally available for matters arising out of running a business

bitsnbytes wrote: »

If the landlady does get into financial difficulties and possibly lose her property the rapist should be proud, after all he has successfully destroyed the lives of 2 women :mad:

No - the LL had a *choice* - it was her own actions that landed her in court , not those of her tenant which were a separate matter.

You've posted elsewhere that you are thinking of letting property out yourself-maybe you need to sit down and have a serious think about that?

You have to be able to deal with tenants from all walks of life and cover your own back whilst doing so.Common sense, let alone business sense, surely?

LLs are not *part* of the judical system - they have to comply with the requirements of it just like everybody else, and when/if they don't, then they have to face the subsequent penalties.