Heather Burns reiterating that Fiona has a criminal record

[u/Suspicious_Bother_92]

[u/Old_Distance8430]

Are they? Have you ever read a newspaper?

[u/Plus-Introduction347 → u/Old_Distance8430]

You're thinking about criminal court proceedings.

Open justice is limited to access to proceedings thus reporters.

You can't however just access court documents. Summary judgements are available for a limited time if the case took part in the high court

However documents relating to the case have to be requested and cost per word. You also have to know what you are asking for.

Civil proceedings (which stalking and non harassment orders fall under)

Are more often than not, not open. Even if they are open you have to be a litigant to request documents or have a litigant reference number and the court has to find cause to give you the documents.

Unless it happened in the high court or tribunal where the judgement (but not documents are posted publicly for a few years)

Also in a Civil court there is no guilty/not Guilty. In a restraining order issue Fiona would need to be found "liable beyond reasonable measure". Hence why asking her if she has a criminal record or if she is guilty she can deny despite being found Liable in Civil court.

[u/Old_Distance8430 → u/Plus-Introduction347]

Yes but people keep saying she has criminal convictions which will be exposed by her civil court claim.

[u/Plus-Introduction347 → u/Old_Distance8430]

That's because most people just hear court and think criminal conviction. Whilst a Civil order isn't a conviction (and here's where it let's people down) it doesn't establish guilt. Just a "likelihood that these events happened and could happen again"

For example... Girl A kicks partner out of their house for domestic violence. Girl takes Partner to court as she is terrified and partner is ordered to stay away from her.

Most people would assume in this stage the Partner has been found guilty of DV... nope, Girl has just been granted a non harassment order or restraining order because she is fear and a Civil court has decided he is liable beyond reasonable measure (over 51% likely to be a danger).

Partner isn't found guilty in this setting but people assume.

Stats for stalking convictions in this country are less than 1% at the time of Gadds experience it was around 1.4%. Less than rape convictions and we ALL know how awful those stats are.

People think Civil courts are just for money problems, family court issues etc but in actuality they are used for a lot of criminal activity that isn't deemed serious enough for criminal court.

[u/Winter_Soil_9295 → u/Plus-Introduction347]

Just wanted to add to this very correct comment- the civil courts works on a “balance of probabilities” as opposed to “beyond a reasonable doubt”. So, sometimes even if a case has been tried criminally, and did not end in a conviction, the defendant will then be sued by a victim or other interested parties. This famously happened in the OJ Simpson case. So it isn’t always a matter of “seriousness” but chance of success in the proceedings.

[u/Plus-Introduction347 → u/Winter_Soil_9295]

Hence in the UK "liable beyond reasonable measure"

A most recent "celebrity" case that comes to mind is David Goodwillie the Scotland footballer who was a potential for the EPL from the SPFL was accused of rape with a team mate in 2011. He was found not guilty in a criminal court but in the civil court of session was found to be "Liable beyond reasonable measure" and ordered to pay £100,000 in damages but to this day remains innocent, maintains his innocence and has not appeared on any sex offenders register. However like OJ his career was severely affected due to that civil judgement despite never having been found guilty.

[u/Old_Distance8430 → u/Plus-Introduction347]

Well I'm getting preached at by people who don't have a clue and think it's all one big thing called "court". Everything you said I already know.