Would ever be possible that a case judged in criminal proceedings was also brought in civil proceedings?

For example, if in a criminal process a man is held guilty of fraud and, say, obliged to pay a fine (so, compensatory damages) to the wronged party, for the same facts is it possible that also a tort claim is brought against him, with the effect that the wronged party obtains double damages from him? I dont think so, but where are the legal basis to avoid that?
This is also for an act which arise two causes in action, put in breach of contract and in tort (negligence): in this case, would be possble that the same fact give rise to two claims and, if both judged in the same sense, that the defendant for the same fact has to pay damages in compensation of two distinct wrongs?

Doethineb

Where a criminal court has made a compensation order under the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973 against him requiring him to pay compensation for any personal injury, loss or damage which may have resulted from his offence, the person who has suffered the injury, damage, or loss may nevertheless bring a civil action over the same subject matter. If he does so the civil court will assess the full damages in the normal manner, but the aggrieved person may receive only the amount by which the damages as so assessed exceed the amount of the compensation order; in other words, the amount which he receives in total must not exceed the amount assessed by the civil court.

What this means is that the civil court will offset any money paid in compensation under the order made by the criminal court against the amount which it orders the person concerned to pay.

UK answer, as this is on the UK page.

SimonC

A fine is not compensation to the victim, it is a penalty paid to the state.

It is perfectly possible to bring a tort action based on the same facts as a criminal action. In fact it happens in motoring offences all the time. A driver may be found criminally liable, eg for dangerous driving, and then be sued for damages by the drivers he crashed into.

Similarly, it is common that there is more than one cause of action in a case, in which case both will be pleaded in court.

But, it is an overriding principle of English law that a claimant shall not be rewarded twice. So if a criminal court awarded some compensation that will be taken into account in deciding tort damages, and if there is more than one cause of action the damages awarded look at the actual loss only not each cause. And if claimant has already received other benefits they are deducted from the relevant part of his damages (eg if claiming for loss of earnings any sick pay is deducted).

If a claimant has already been fully compensated he cannot bring another action, and if he did so it would be struck out as an abuse of process and he would probably be liable for any costs to that point.

Carolyn C

Ask OJ Simpson can that happen. It most certainly can. Criminal courts handles the punishment for the crime. Civil court handles the compensatory damages for the crime. In OJ's case, he won the criminal case, but lost the civil case. In civil court, you don't have to prove the same burden of guilt that you do in criminal court; you only needs to show the court that a the person most likely did the crime.

fangtaiyang

It happens all the time. The civil proceeding is for compensatory damages. The fine is paid to the state.

PooPooLaTrash

Yes. For famous precedent, OJ Simpson was found not guilty of murder in criminal court, but that did not stop the victims' families for successfully suing for wrongful death in civil court. And even if he had been found guilty of murder, the family would have still had the right to sue in civil court. It's the same in UK and American law.

John

Yes. Sometimes allowing the criminal case to be heard first is better as the govt does all the work gathering evidence.

As the standard of proof is different, it is easier to prove facts in a civil case.

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: