Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 16:10

From: Michael Jones

Subject: Bye-bye limitation?

Dear All,

It's not just about the "pain and suffering" of the assault itself.

Some of the claimants who have been the victim of sexual abuse have had their lives totally wrecked by the psychological consequences, including their education and therefore their job prospects.  And what is it that is being advocated here, if they are told that they should have sued a man of straw many years ago in order to vindicate their rights but not obtain any compensation, but that when they are in a position to obtain compensation they cannot bring their claim?  Some justice ...

We don't apply limitation periods to the criminal law (in the UK at least).  I have considerable sympathy for the proposition that, subject the court being satisfied that it is possible to conduct a hearing fairly, there should be no limitation period for intentional wrongs.  If potential defendants find that uncomfortable, then tough - let them deal with it and get on with their own lives as best they can (which is the medicine being advocated for the victims).

Michael

--------------------------------------
Michael A. Jones
Professor of Common Law
Liverpool Law School
University of Liverpool
Liverpool
L69 3BX

Phone: (0)151 794 2821
Fax: (0)151 794 2829
--------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Heather McLeod-Kilmurray
Sent: Tue 08/07/2008 15:36
Subject: RE: [Fwd: Re: bye-bye limitation?]

Dear all

I agree strongly with Prof Keren-Paz.

Two very important purposes of these awards are also punishment and deterrence.

There is no limitation on the lingering, profound damage to the victim – why should there be a limitation for the intentional wrongdoer?

<<<< Previous Message  ~  Index  ~  Next Message >>>>>