|
|
|
|
|
by Retric
1486 days ago
|
|
We both agree with what’s going on and that it’s wrong. I am saying the court system is misclassifying criminal cases as civil ones. You want to increase the standard of evidence which IMO means roughly the same thing. But, I can see why you might disagree. |
|
An interesting instance of this happened recently, when an appellant in a civil case to our Supreme Court (who also happened to be a lawyer) deliberately leaked the court's draft opinion to the press while it was under embargo. The court wasn't sure what to do, as contempt findings carry an automatic right of appeal and yet there's no-one to appeal to from the supreme court.
(As we have more than one benchful of Supreme Court justices, they decided to assemble one panel for the 'first instance' hearing, which was itself distinct from that who had heard the original case, and a completely fresh panel for the appeal[0]. He was fined £5000 and the appeal was dismissed on all grounds.)
Allegations of fraud in a civil case have also historically been treated differently, because losing could have a similar effect on a litigant's reputation (and ability to carry out a business) as a criminal conviction. It's sometimes possible to get a civil jury trial under these circumstances, for example, which have been effectively abolished in this jurisdiction.
[0]: https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2021-0160.html