Two players ruled as rapists (1 Viewer)

Otis

Well-Known Member
I see Plymouth have quite rightly said that Goodwillie will not be selected and they await the full report.

Footballers Goodwillie and Robertson ruled as rapists - BBC News

A former Scotland international footballer and his ex-teammate have been ruled to be rapists and ordered to pay £100,000 damages despite never facing a criminal trial.

Denise Clair, who was left "devastated" by a Crown decision not to prosecute, sued striker David Goodwillie.

She also sued Goodwillie's then Dundee United colleague David Robertson.

She claimed they raped her at a flat in Armadale, in West Lothian, after a night out in Bathgate in January 2011.

It was the first civil rape case of its kind in Scotland.


Ms Clair, who previously waived her right to anonymity, said she could not remember what happened after being in a Bathgate bar and woke up in a strange flat the following morning.

The 30-year-old originally sought £500,000 in compensation, but damages were later agreed at £100,000 in the civil action at the Court of Session in Edinburgh.

'Persuasive and compelling'
The mother-of-one maintained she was incapable of giving free agreement to sex because of her alcohol consumption, but Goodwillie, 27, who now plays with Plymouth Argyle, and Robertson claimed that intercourse had been consensual.

A judge said: "Having carefully examined and scrutinised the whole evidence in the case, I find the evidence of the pursuer (the woman) to be cogent, persuasive and compelling."

_93633800_clair.jpg
I
Lord Armstrong said: "In the result, therefore, I find that in the early hours of Sunday 2 January 2011, at the flat in Greig Crescent, Armadale, both defenders (the footballers) took advantage of the pursuer when she was vulnerable through an excessive intake of alcohol and, because her cognitive functioning and decision-making processes were so impaired, was incapable of giving meaningful consent; and that they each raped her."

The judge said he found neither Goodwillie - who also played for Aberdeen and Blackburn Rovers - or Robertson to be credible or reliable on the issue of whether they had a reasonable or honest belief that she was consenting.

He rejected evidence relied on by the players that Ms Clair was not particularly affected by alcohol and was no more drunk than anyone else in the company they had been in that night.

'Woman needed ambulance'
Lord Armstrong said that prior to the incident the victim had enjoyed life, but her life changed following the decision not to proceed with a prosecution.

Lord Armstrong said: "She found that decision difficult to understand and had felt that she had not been believed."

"She felt that her life had been destroyed by something which had happened although, because of her lack of memory, she was not fully aware of what it was that had caused that effect," he said.

Goodwillie had gone to join Robertson in Bathgate after the pair had played for Dundee United against Aberdeen on 1 January during which Goodwillie scored an equaliser.

He maintained that he did not think Ms Clair was too drunk to consent to sex.

However, a security firm employee working at the nightclub told the court that she had been in need of an ambulance.

Gayle McGregor said: "She wasn't in control of herself. Her eyes were rolling in her head. She couldn't stand up straight. She couldn't speak to me properly. She wasn't compos mentis."

In the action it was said the players offered her a lift home in a taxi, but the driver was requested to drop all three at the flat in Armadale.

A Plymouth Argyle spokesman said: "We note today's judgment from the Court of Session in Edinburgh regarding David Goodwillie.

"We await the full report, which we will consider in detail before making any comment.

"Until such time, David Goodwillie will not be selected to play for Plymouth Argyle."

The Crown Office said it stood by its previous decision not to prosecute the footballers.

A spokesman said: "As Lord Armstrong stated in his judgement, the standard of proof to be satisfied was that of the balance of probabilities which is a less onerous requirement than the standard in criminal cases, which is beyond reasonable doubt.

"Further, there is no requirement of corroboration in civil cases unlike in criminal cases.

"This case was looked at very carefully by Crown counsel who concluded that there was insufficient evidence in law to raise criminal proceedings. As a result no proceedings were instructed."



Oh and I suppose it is now cue lots of jokes about David Badwillie. :(
 

Last edited:

rob9872

Well-Known Member
Odd stance from Plymouth. Regardless of morality (different issue to proving guilt, clearly abhorrent either way) but no outstanding conviction and they suspend, yet happy to have a child killer between the sticks. A little hypocritical.
 

Otis

Well-Known Member
Not so sure. McCormack served his time, showed remorse and was rightly punished. Now a free man.

Goodwillie has JUST been ruled as a rapist. Surely that is saying he IS a rapist. Just that it was a civil case.

McCormack WAS punished, Goodwillie had gotten away with it until now.

Bit different me thinks.
 

rob9872

Well-Known Member
Served time in the eye of the courts. Ched Evans served his time (ok now acquitted) but there was outrage at thought he might play. I think the rape allegation Im not excusing (and yes perhaps I would think differently if she was my daughter) but being so drunk and not in control to put herself in that position was her free choice. The two children that were killed not to mention the family left behind , never had tgat choice and in no way complicit.

I'm not the law I appreciate, but the crimes not comparable in my book and LM should never have been given the chance to pick his career up again.
 

Gazolba

Well-Known Member
I thought only Idi Amin ruled as a rapist.
 

Covstu

Well-Known Member
i don't understand how someone can be classed as a rapist and not criminally charged? Surely one follows the other rather than a monetary payout?
 

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
i don't understand how someone can be classed as a rapist and not criminally charged? Surely one follows the other rather than a monetary payout?
Burden of proof in a criminal case is higher than a civil case. That leaves you with a very odd situation like this where in a case that it has been decided doesn't have enough chance of success to be worth going to court for a criminal trial being ruled on in a civil trial.

So as an employer what do you now do? There's no criminal conviction, you could even argue they haven't been ruled rapist as I'm not sure the civil court has the power to do that.
 

Covstu

Well-Known Member
Burden of proof in a criminal case is higher than a civil case. That leaves you with a very odd situation like this where in a case that it has been decided doesn't have enough chance of success to be worth going to court for a criminal trial being ruled on in a civil trial.

So as an employer what do you now do? There's no criminal conviction, you could even argue they haven't been ruled rapist as I'm not sure the civil court has the power to do that.
exactly, technically in the eyes of the law he was not convicted so what else are the club waiting on?
 

eastwoodsdustman

Well-Known Member
balance of probabilities is the term in the civil case. I don't think I'd be happy to pay a £100k sum to someone on the balance of probabilities.
Regardless of the legal side, Why don't footballers learn when others get caught for it? I'm not saying for one minute that this woman made the allegations up, but whenever they behave in this manner they will get stung financially more often than the average factory worker.
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
Not so sure. McCormack served his time, showed remorse and was rightly punished. Now a free man.

Goodwillie has JUST been ruled as a rapist. Surely that is saying he IS a rapist. Just that it was a civil case.

McCormack WAS punished, Goodwillie had gotten away with it until now.

Bit different me thinks.

Do you understand what a civil case is?
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member

Otis

Well-Known Member
So why say he is guilty of a crime - he isn't. You say he has been found a rapist. He hasn't.
I said he has been ruled a rapist. A civil court obviously can't convict anyone of any crime.

Basically though they are saying he is a rapist, same as OJ, innocent but the civil case found him culpable.

I didn't say he had been found to be a rapist. He has been ruled as one. Civil courts have to word their words carefully.
 

Covstu

Well-Known Member
balance of probabilities is the term in the civil case. I don't think I'd be happy to pay a £100k sum to someone on the balance of probabilities.
Regardless of the legal side, Why don't footballers learn when others get caught for it? I'm not saying for one minute that this woman made the allegations up, but whenever they behave in this manner they will get stung financially more often than the average factory worker.
Also there to be shot at though
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top