Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Sexual assault and universities watch

Announcements
    Online

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bupdeeboowah)
    Both your statements are contradictory: the university doesn't have to act like a court, but has to act like one for legal reasons?
    No, they aren't contradictory; you simply aren't actually familiar enough with the subject, which makes your attempt at condemning the practice very concerning.

    A university doesn't have to act like a court, because it's not. The same rules governing courts don't govern university bodies. However, certain laws need to be followed in the university procedure to ensure compliance.

    For example, in the United States, persons have a right to 'due process'. Due process is a right actionable against University administrative bodies, such as disciplinary boards. However, what 'due process' means in a Court and how it governs Court hearings is not the same as what it means in a University body.

    For example, you have a right to representation in a Court; but you may not have one in a University body. A lawyer may represent you in Court, but sometimes they may not in a University body (they can only act as witnesses to the procedure and counsel their client).
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NYU2012)
    If they're innocent, they can appeal to a court.


    You cannot arrest a rape suspect unless you have evidence to warrant the arrest. If the victim refuses to testify or offer a statement, then you have no grounds for arrest.

    Your conception that criminal court is always the appropriate way to handle things shows a total lack of understanding or sympathy for victims. You're placing a burden on victims to undergo further trauma in order to remedy their situation - something many aren't willing to do.
    The first point I'd make is that you CAN have sufficient evidence for rape without the testimony of the victim, i.e. if I witness a man raping a woman MY testimony is sufficient to warrant an arrest.

    But secondly ... your view shows a lack of care about what happens to the accused. Western justice systems exist to protect the innocent, and you can't do that unless you have sufficient protections granted towards the accused so that they aren't unfairly punished.

    This is not me saying that it's easy for rape victims to go through the process of taking their rapist to trial, and it's not me having a lack of sympathy for victims, but a recognition that can never be fair for us to punish someone in any form without proof. And the only standard I am willing to trust when it comes to things as serious as rape are the law courts.

    Do not misunderstand me as being callous towards victims, that is not what I am doing, I am just very reasonably afraid of a pernicious idea that seems to be creeping in, that views investigations, and trials as stumbling blocks to punishing bad people, as opposed to them being absolutely vital pillars of justice that protect the innocent.
    Online

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by limetang)
    The first point I'd make is that you CAN have sufficient evidence for rape without the testimony of the victim, i.e. if I witness a man raping a woman MY testimony is sufficient to warrant an arrest.
    No, it's hearsay. The 'victim' could claim that they consented in order to avoid having to go through a criminal trial.

    Here's a hypothetical: Suppose that the rapist knew that the victim didn't want a criminal trial and told relevant persons in the criminal justice system that she consented; you, however, testify that she did not. Suppose further that the rapist is aware of these facts. The arrest would be unlawful because, as far as the criminal justice system can tell, the victim's admission on consent is the absolute determinate factor. As such, the rapist could lawfully resist arrest and claim damages from the police for unlawful arrest.

    But secondly ... your view shows a lack of care about what happens to the accused. Western justice systems exist to protect the innocent, and you can't do that unless you have sufficient protections granted towards the accused so that they aren't unfairly punished.
    I'm a human rights lawyer. My sole concern in life is proper regard for rights law. As I have repeatedly stated, if the accused is innocent, they are free to bring the case for judicial review.

    This is not me saying that it's easy for rape victims to go through the process of taking their rapist to trial, and it's not me having a lack of sympathy for victims, but a recognition that can never be fair for us to punish someone in any form without proof. And the only standard I am willing to trust when it comes to things as serious as rape are the law courts.
    Yet again, the standard of proof that a court will accept in a civil rape case is "on the balance on probabilities." If a University is brought to Court by a defendant who has been wrongly punished by the University body, the University has to show it used the same level of proof that the Court itself would accept.

    Again, you don't seem to actually understand how these various processes actually work; the relevant legal rules regarding proof; etc.

    Do not misunderstand me as being callous towards victims, that is not what I am doing, I am just very reasonably afraid of a pernicious idea that seems to be creeping in, that views investigations, and trials as stumbling blocks to punishing bad people, as opposed to them being absolutely vital pillars of justice that protect the innocent.
    As the research into sexual assault has virtually universally demonstrated, the justice system is a stumbling block to punishing bad people. Criminal trials are not desirable for a number of victims of sexual assault. Civil trials are a waste of time for many because the defendant has no money to pay damages.

    Your argument, taken to its logical conclusion, is that Universities shouldn't be able to punish/expel their own students without the involvement of a Court that, presumably, follows criminal standards.

    A student cheated on a test and we want to expel them? Take it to criminal court! How absurd. If a University can expel a student for cheating (a not very serious 'crime') on a "balance of probabilities standard"; how on earth does it make sense to say that for more serious crimes, which result in the same punishment, they cannot do so; that they must have it put to a criminal court.

    Finally, as I have repeatedly stated, decisions can be appealed to Court for judicial review. So, all of your concerns around rights are nullified by the appellate procedure.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NYU2012)
    You cannot arrest a rape suspect unless you have evidence to warrant the arrest. If the victim refuses to testify or offer a statement, then you have no grounds for arrest.
    That's too bad for them, but we cannot punish someone without proof. In the USA, several students who were expelled on rape allegations, but without a fair trial, have sued their university and won a lot of money because of that.

    I find it very concerning that a 'human rights lawyer' who boasts so many degrees says that we can punish people for rape without going before a court.

    (Original post by NYU2012)
    A student cheated on a test and we want to expel them? Take it to criminal court! How absurd. If a University can expel a student for cheating (a not very serious 'crime' on a "balance of probabilities standard"; how on earth does it make sense to say that for more serious crimes, which result in the same punishment, they cannot do so; that they must have it put to a criminal court..
    1. It's quite easy to prove that a student has cheated.
    2. There is a difference between cheating and a rape. ffs

    You are quite dishonest and hide your agenda behind an elaborate verbiage.

    Universities cannot replace courts in rape cases. Period.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NYU2012)
    No, they aren't contradictory; you simply aren't actually familiar enough with the subject, which makes your attempt at condemning the practice very concerning.

    A university doesn't have to act like a court, because it's not. The same rules governing courts don't govern university bodies. However, certain laws need to be followed in the university procedure to ensure compliance.

    For example, in the United States, persons have a right to 'due process'. Due process is a right actionable against University administrative bodies, such as disciplinary boards. However, what 'due process' means in a Court and how it governs Court hearings is not the same as what it means in a University body.

    For example, you have a right to representation in a Court; but you may not have one in a University body. A lawyer may represent you in Court, but sometimes they may not in a University body (they can only act as witnesses to the procedure and counsel their client).
    No. Universities have the choice to not to act like courts in their investigations, but are held to a standard which requires the result of a university investigation to be essentially the same as that of a court; failure to do so may result in a lengthy and potentially expensive judicial review action for all three parties, ignoring other negative externalities. This kind of schizophrenic adjudication system is clearly not the best way to approach cases of rape in university campuses - in fact, to avoid any judicial review actions, it is best for universities to administer justice in the same manner as the courts.
    Online

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Josb)
    That's too bad for them, but we cannot punish someone without proof. In the USA, several students who were expelled on rape allegations, but without a fair trial, have sued their university and won a lot of money because of that.

    I find it very concerning that a 'human rights lawyer' who boasts so many degrees says that we can punish people for rape without going before a court.
    And if they've been improperly punished, then they have appropriate recourse actions. This is not a case of injustice, failure to to have appropriate appellate procedure, etc.

    Furthermore, re "without proof" - as I have repeatedly stated, the standard of proof for punishing someone is "on the balance of probabilities." This is the standard a University, or a civil court, must use for anything from rape to cheating.

    It's not a matter of criminal law, it's a matter of internal University rules. A University can expel a student, on the appropriate legal burden of proof, for cheating, assault, battery, harassment, rape, etc. without having to use a civil or criminal court. Unless you're going to start arguing that cases of cheating need to be brought to a civil or criminal court, then your argument is inconsistent and fundamentally misunderstands the differentiation between state law and private body 'law'.

    An employer is allowed to fire an employee because he believes, on the balance of probabilities, that the fired employee sexually harassed another employee. The only recourse the fired employee has is to demonstrate that the employer acted fundamentally unfairly. In private conflicts, your rights as to fair trial do not exist You, and everyone else on this thread, vastly misunderstand the nature of rights. Rights apply against the State; they DO NOT apply directly against other private persons or bodies. I cannot legally claim that a University or an employer deprived me of my "right to a fair trial" because that legal right exists only against the State.

    I find it very concerning that a non-lawyer who clearly knows nothing about legal procedure or rights has taken it upon themselves to attempt to criticize a system of which they are entirely ignorant. Legal rights of due process or fair trial DO NOT APPLY AGAINST NON-STATE BODIES. There is no such thing as a right to a fair trial between private persons or private bodies; just like there's no such thing as a right of free speech against other private persons or bodies. You have vastly misunderstood the nature of rights and their legal nature.

    1. It's quite easy to prove that a student has cheated.
    2. There is a difference between cheating and a rape. ffs

    You are quite dishonest and hide your agenda behind an elaborate verbiage.

    Universities cannot replace courts in rape cases. Period.
    Of course there is a difference between rape and cheating - but if a student can be expelled for cheating on a legal burden of "on the balance of probabilities", then why not the same for more serious crimes?
    Online

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bupdeeboowah)
    No. Universities have the choice to not to act like courts in their investigations
    Courts don't conduct investigations, at least not usually - it's the exception, by far, for a Court to ever conduct an investigation.

    Not only do Universities not act like Courts, but they cannot act like Courts. They lack the legal power to act like a Court. They are not legally empowered to behave identically to a Court.

    I will repeat - if you are unfamiliar with the actual rules, practices, laws, etc. then you're in no position to be attempting to critique the current procedure. An ignorant critique isn't helpful .

    but are held to a standard which requires the result of a university investigation to be essentially the same as that of a court; failure to do so may result in a lengthy and potentially expensive judicial review action for all three parties, ignoring other negative externalities.
    Again, Courts don't typically conduct investigations. Police or investigatory bodies do.

    The University is held to a standard whereby by they may act only upon a legal burden of "on the balance of probabilities." An identical standard to civil court. There are fewer rules as to the admissibility of evidence in a University body hearing than in a criminal court; it's closer to the rules of civil court.

    If the University has acted wrongly, then they must pay the legal fees of the aggrieved party.

    So, again, what is the problem?

    This kind of schizophrenic adjudication system is clearly not the best way to approach cases of rape in university campuses - in fact, to avoid any judicial review actions, it is best for universities to administer justice in the same manner as the courts.
    You seem to massively misunderstand the process of University body administration and judicial review. Judicial review doesn't conduct it's own investigation (typically). Rather, it's purpose is to see if the procedure the University followed was internally consistent with the University's own rules and that no rights violations have occurred.

    The Courts in judicial review cases are not acting as a civil court reviewing a rape case - they're acting as a review body as to the appropriateness of the decision reached by the University body.

    Again, as the body of lawyers and legal academics have agreed upon - those who actually practice law and have far more experience and knowledge than yourself - the method of allowing Universities to handle to their own internal complaints is perfectly legitimate.

    It's the same as if, for example, I complain to the University that a professor is acting inappropriately. It's an internal matter, governed by the University rules of conduct.

    A Court of law administers State law, a University body administered University law ; you seem to think that Courts are empowered to act on issues of University law - they are not. A Court is empowered to determine whether or not the University body acted inappropriately regarding standards of conduct and the administration of University law. A Court is NOT empowered to replace University law with State law unless that particular University law directly abridges State law.

    Your entire argument and understanding of the process fundamentally misunderstands the difference between a public court administering state law and a private or quasi-private body administering its own law.

    In cases of rape on University campus, the offender is NOT being convicted of a crime. The punishment he or she is receiving is, usually, expulsion - a punishment identical to that of, e.g. cheating. The legal burden of proof is "on the balance of probabilities" - a burden which is legally correct, justified and accepted. The law sees no injustice here, contrary to your repeated assertions.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NYU2012)
    Courts don't conduct investigations, at least not usually - it's the exception, by far, for a Court to ever conduct an investigation.

    Not only do Universities not act like Courts, but they cannot act like Courts. They lack the legal power to act like a Court. They are not legally empowered to behave identically to a Court.

    I will repeat - if you are unfamiliar with the actual rules, practices, laws, etc. then you're in no position to be attempting to critique the current procedure. An ignorant critique isn't helpful .

    Again, Courts don't typically conduct investigations. Police or investigatory bodies do.

    The University is held to a standard whereby by they may act only upon a legal burden of "on the balance of probabilities." An identical standard to civil court. There are fewer rules as to the admissibility of evidence in a University body hearing than in a criminal court; it's closer to the rules of civil court.

    If the University has acted wrongly, then they must pay the legal fees of the aggrieved party.

    So, again, what is the problem?
    You're being incredibly semantic; I'm sure you know what I have been driving at. Saying that I do not know the actual practices in the US and purposely ignoring what I have been saying is not particularly helpful.

    (Original post by NYU2012)
    You seem to massively misunderstand the process of University body administration and judicial review. Judicial review doesn't conduct it's own investigation (typically). Rather, it's purpose is to see if the procedure the University followed was internally consistent with the University's own rules and that no rights violations have occurred.

    The Courts in judicial review cases are not acting as a civil court reviewing a rape case - they're acting as a review body as to the appropriateness of the decision reached by the University body.

    Again, as the body of lawyers and legal academics have agreed upon - those who actually practice law and have far more experience and knowledge than yourself - the method of allowing Universities to handle to their own internal complaints is perfectly legitimate.

    It's the same as if, for example, I complain to the University that a professor is acting inappropriately. It's an internal matter, governed by the University rules of conduct.

    A Court of law administers State law, a University body administered University law ; you seem to think that Courts are empowered to act on issues of University law - they are not. A Court is empowered to determine whether or not the University body acted inappropriately regarding standards of conduct and the administration of University law. A Court is NOT empowered to replace University law with State law unless that particular University law directly abridges State law.

    Your entire argument and understanding of the process fundamentally misunderstands the difference between a public court administering state law and a private or quasi-private body administering its own law.

    In cases of rape on University campus, the offender is NOT being convicted of a crime. The punishment he or she is receiving is, usually, expulsion - a punishment identical to that of, e.g. cheating. The legal burden of proof is "on the balance of probabilities" - a burden which is legally correct, justified and accepted. The law sees no injustice here, contrary to your repeated assertions.
    You have in fact described a inherently schizophrenic system. The university's investigation into alleged rape uses civil procedures to expel someone accused of a criminal act.
    Online

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bupdeeboowah)
    You have in fact described a inherently schizophrenic system. The university's investigation into alleged rape uses civil procedures to expel someone accused of a criminal act.
    I have done no such thing. Yet again, this is incorrect. If you don't understand the system, the differentiation between criminal/civil and non-law (private regulatory body rules) then you're in position to be critiquing it. All you've done here is repeatedly demonstrate that you're unfamiliar with law qua law, legal systems qua legal systems, and private regulatory bodies qua private regulatory bodies.

    (1) A University does not use civil procedure - civil procedure is a large set of rules encompassing all sorts of things. It uses the same legal burden of proof as civil procedure. But it is not a civil court. It is a private body. It's not using civil procedure, which is an entirely different thing with its own set of rules. It's using its own internal system which is discrete and distinct from civil or criminal law.

    (2) The person isn't being accused of a criminal act - if they were, they would go to criminal court. They're being accused of an action that violates internal university 'law'. You seem to be under the false misunderstanding that because the action alleged is also prosecutable by the state as a crime, that the defendant is being charged as having committed a criminal act. This is false. One can only be charged with a criminal act in a criminal court.

    For example, one can be charged with criminal rape in a criminal court; or one can be charged with sexual assault (rape) in a civil court. In civil court, sexual assault isn't a crime it's a tort against the victim, for which the accused will have to pay monetary damages if found guilty. In the case of University regulatory bodies, it's not a tort against the person, it's a violation of University policy.

    University regulatory bodies, civil court and criminal court are very different things that function in different ways that apply different sets of rules. A criminal court uses criminal procedure and applies criminal law. A civil court uses civil procedure and applies civil law. A University regulatory body uses its own procedure (which legally must meet certain minimum requirements), and applies its own University rules and regulations.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NYU2012)
    Well, you seem to profoundly misunderstand the difference between criminal and non-criminal procedures.

    (1) Some victims of sexual assault don't want to go to the police. They don't want their trauma to be public record; they don't want to have to testify in court; they don't want a months or even years long process; etc. Having a University deal with it is typically much easier and faster.

    (2) The legal burden in civil proceedings is "on the balance of probabilities" - which is anything over 50% likely. In criminal proceedings it's "beyond reasonable doubt" - 99% sure. You can know that X raped Y but have insufficient evidence to prove it in a criminal trial. But, the school, in civil action, can expel the student.
    Sexual assault isn't a civil offence. If the university was to say 'we're expelling you for sexually assaulting another student' they'd have to pray the 'defendant' got convicted otherwise it's libel


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Online

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    Sexual assault isn't a civil offence. If the university was to say 'we're expelling you for sexually assaulting another student' they'd have to pray the 'defendant' got convicted otherwise it's libel
    False. Absolutely entirely false. You're either (1) extremely ignorant of law or (2) just lying.

    Firstly, please go pick up a tort law book and look at the section on torts against the person. You will find that, in fact, sexual assault is a tort (and therefore civil offense). In fact, if you've seen the news, it's quite common for high profile civil tort sexual assault cases to be talked about. Actually, since you apparently don't know how to even google to look up something so incredibly simple, I've done it for you: here

    Secondly, the University in saying 'We're expelling you for sexually assaulting another student' isn't claiming that the expelled student committed criminal sexual assault. They're claiming that the student sexually assaulted someone in violation of University policies, which defines sexual assault. It's not a statement of a commission of a criminal act. You, like everyone else, has completely failed to understand the differentiation between criminal, civil and private regulatory bodies law.

    Thirdly, you also aren't very familiar with the law of libel either - see the defense of "fair comment".

    Please actually go learn law before making ignorant comments.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NYU2012)
    False. Absolutely entirely false. You're either (1) extremely ignorant of law or (2) just lying.

    Firstly, please go pick up a tort law book and look at the section on torts against the person. You will find that, in fact, sexual assault is a tort (and therefore civil offense). In fact, if you've seen the news, it's quite common for high profile civil tort sexual assault cases to be talked about. Actually, since you apparently don't know how to even google to look up something so incredibly simple, I've done it for you: here

    Secondly, the University in saying 'We're expelling you for sexually assaulting another student' isn't claiming that the expelled student committed criminal sexual assault. They're claiming that the student sexually assaulted someone in violation of University policies, which defines sexual assault. It's not a statement of a commission of a criminal act. You, like everyone else, has completely failed to understand the differentiation between criminal, civil and private regulatory bodies law.

    Thirdly, you also aren't very familiar with the law of libel either - see the defense of "fair comment".

    Please actually go learn law before making ignorant comments.
    Haha you do realise that there were no links to cases in the UK on that stupid link you included? I'm not sure where you studied tort law but if you were told sexual assault is a civil offence I think you should ask for at least a partial refund.

    I've never really looked into my universities policies too deeply but I find it hard to imagine they set out their own actus reus and mens rea for wrongful actions covered by the criminal law. I would say it's more likely they would go with whatever a court ruled but like I said: I've never checked.

    Fair comment? Clearly someone's legal knowledge hasn't been updated since 2013


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bupdeeboowah)
    No. Universities have the choice to not to act like courts in their investigations, but are held to a standard which requires the result of a university investigation to be essentially the same as that of a court; failure to do so may result in a lengthy and potentially expensive judicial review action for all three parties, ignoring other negative externalities. This kind of schizophrenic adjudication system is clearly not the best way to approach cases of rape in university campuses - in fact, to avoid any judicial review actions, it is best for universities to administer justice in the same manner as the courts.
    (Original post by Bupdeeboowah)
    You're being incredibly semantic; I'm sure you know what I have been driving at. Saying that I do not know the actual practices in the US and purposely ignoring what I have been saying is not particularly helpful.

    You have in fact described a inherently schizophrenic system. The university's investigation into alleged rape uses civil procedures to expel someone accused of a criminal act.
    You seem to not know what the word you are using actually means. I'm not sure what word you're trying for but schizophrenia is a mental illness where a person suffers from psychosis. It's definitely not something you can use to describe a university's ability to expel students in breach of the rules. Using the name of any disability to say you think something is flawed (which I guess is what you're going for here) is incredibly ableist.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    So a student is accused of sexual assault. There is insufficient evidence to bring a criminal case, so the accuser goes to the university instead. The university expels the student based on "balance of probabilities". The student then requests a judicial review. The review finds him not guilty (obviously, as there was insufficient evidence). The student then sues the university for wrongful expulsion.

    Sounds like a formula for universities to lose a lot of money.
    Online

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    Haha you do realise that there were no links to cases in the UK on that stupid link you included? I'm not sure where you studied tort law but if you were told sexual assault is a civil offence I think you should ask for at least a partial refund.
    I studied Tort Law under Professor Erika Rackley, who is the author of the most widely used Tort Textbook in the United Kingdom. Go pick up her book.

    If you don't know what you're talking about - which it is plain that you do not - then stop posting. Rape and sexual assault are torts under English law, they fall under the general tort of 'battery'.

    I don't know where you've received your entire education, but it's plainly evident that they never taught you anything about how to conduct research. You should ask for a full refund given how plainly inept you are at doing your own research.

    I've never really looked into my universities policies too deeply but I find it hard to imagine they set out their own actus reus and mens rea for wrongful actions covered by the criminal law. I would say it's more likely they would go with whatever a court ruled but like I said: I've never checked.
    They don't need to set out their own actus reus and mens rea. :facepalm:

    Why don't you leave law to the people who actually know about it, rather than trying to criticize a system it's plainly evident that you know nothing about?
    Online

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cole-slaw)
    So a student is accused of sexual assault. There is insufficient evidence to bring a criminal case, so the accuser goes to the university instead. The university expels the student based on "balance of probabilities". The student then requests a judicial review. The review finds him not guilty (obviously, as there was insufficient evidence). The student then sues the university for wrongful expulsion.
    You misunderstand. The standard is never that of a criminal trial - criminal trials use "beyond reasonable doubt." As this is not a criminal case, and the individual is not being accused of a crime, the standard is "on the balance of probabilities." Any action for judicial review will similarly use "on the balance of probabilities." Nowhere is a criminal standard going to be applied, either by the University or the judiciary.


    Sounds like a formula for universities to lose a lot of money.
    When you correct your conceptual error as the reasoning as to why they would lose money, your claim here has substantially less force. It's not a de facto case that the University will always lose because they failed to meet criminal levels of proof - neither they, nor the judiciary, is required nor is going to apply a criminal standard of proof.

    The fact that the University could be sued for negligence (i.e. the judicial review finds that the University acted improperly) is an inbuilt check on keeping the procedure fair. The University doesn't want to be sued and, as such, will take all reasonable precautions and comply with appropriate procedure.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    NYU2012's arguments seem perfectly clear and I don't see how people are having trouble with understanding them.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NYU2012)
    You misunderstand. The standard is never that of a criminal trial - criminal trials use "beyond reasonable doubt." As this is not a criminal case, and the individual is not being accused of a crime, the standard is "on the balance of probabilities." Any action for judicial review will similarly use "on the balance of probabilities." Nowhere is a criminal standard going to be applied, either by the University or the judiciary.



    When you correct your conceptual error as the reasoning as to why they would lose money, your claim here has substantially less force. It's not a de facto case that the University will always lose because they failed to meet criminal levels of proof - neither they, nor the judiciary, is required nor is going to apply a criminal standard of proof.

    The fact that the University could be sued for negligence (i.e. the judicial review finds that the University acted improperly) is an inbuilt check on keeping the procedure fair. The University doesn't want to be sued and, as such, will take all reasonable precautions and comply with appropriate procedure.
    Yes, I understood that after reading your previous posts, thanks for explaining.

    You learn something new every day.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NYU2012)
    I studied Tort Law under Professor Erika Rackley, who is the author of the most widely used Tort Textbook in the United Kingdom. Go pick up her book.

    If you don't know what you're talking about - which it is plain that you do not - then stop posting. Rape and sexual assault are torts under English law, they fall under the general tort of 'battery'.
    Theoretically almost any form of physical contact can be covered by the tort of battery but please name a case where someone has been held liable for battery after committing a rape or sexual assault.

    What's funny is I was actually taught tort by Kirsty Horsey who I believe co-wrote that tort law text book with Erika.


    (Original post by NYU2012)
    They don't need to set out their own actus reus and mens rea. :facepalm:
    Well if they don't then they would need to accept the decision of a court. They couldn't expel a student for committing a sexual assault if a court found they were liable.

    (Original post by NYU2012)
    Why don't you leave law to the people who actually know about it, rather than trying to criticize a system it's plainly evident that you know nothing about?
    Sorry professor


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Online

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    Theoretically almost any form of physical contact can be covered by the tort of battery but please name a case where someone has been held liable for battery after committing a rape or sexual assault.

    What's funny is I was actually taught tort by Kirsty Horsey who I believe co-wrote that tort law text book with Erika.
    You can go on WestLaw UK and look for yourself. I highly doubt you went to law school given what profound and troubling errors you've made in your posts. It's quite well-known, in fact common knowledge among lawyers, that an action for rape/sexual assault can be brought under tort law. Assuming you actually went to law school, did you ever actually go to the lectures or pass the class?

    Even if we were to assume that no one were yet held liable for rape under tort, the multitude of US cases offer a high amount of persuasive authority and it's not like the UK Supreme Court (at the time HL) hasn't cited US case law as establishing a principle of English tort law (Palsgraf v Long Island Railrod).

    And, even if we were to assume that I was completely wrong as the applicability of tort law in this instance, the theory argument advanced would still hold true. The 'defendant' isn't being charged of a crime, so criminal court and criminal procedure aren't necessary. It's no different than being fired for sexual harassment or expelled for punching someone in the face.

    Well if they don't then they would need to accept the decision of a court. They couldn't expel a student for committing a sexual assault if a court found they were liable.
    The point you're trying to make here is unclear.

    A University doesn't need to set out a mens rea and actus reus because it uses tort standards.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.