The trouble with this type of media ridden case is the emotions that it brings to the surface. The reality is that emotions + law have little to do with each other - + for that reason thankfully we don't have witch hunts + lynch mobs now!

In reality a crime, an injury in fact any kind of induced pain can stay with us for the remainder of our lives - but when it comes to sexual matters there seems to be an unbalanced view towards them for some reason Thy are somehow seen as a dfferent crime to other equally traumatising types of assaults which certainly don't get the same amount of attention.

If we are to live in a society that we wish to become fairer then we need to look at the sentences + punishments that are given to offenders in the first place and the inequality of compensation awards at the time - Lesley Ash?
We can't change the law just because 1 man wins the lottery. And what motivation is there to work hard when released if they can be sued as soon as they get any money

paul blackmoore, brighton, sussex

FAO Michael from Telford.

The time bar is for individuals who want to sue the alleged perpetrator for money damages through the civil courts. It is not a time bar against the state prosecuting the individual in the criminal courts.

Mr Hoare has already been successfully prosecuted and jailed for his crime against Mrs A. She wants to sue him now, rather than within the time limit, because he now has money to pay her damages, having won the lotto. This is the 'justice' that she now seeks.

To Keith Terrence, of Winnipeg, the present situation is already that time starts to run when the fact of the damage is realised by the victim or when the age of majority is reached.

Kara, London,

michael, the ruling concerns the right for a victim to sue, not the bringing of criminal charges. the man mrs a wishes to sue has already been tried and found guilty of the offence (hence being in prison).

it's true that the trauma of suffering such abuse might last for ever, though. personally, I don't see why there should be any statute of limitations for serious offences.

if this animal had got the sentence he deserved, he would not have been around to be in it to win it.

jem, london, uk

To Michael in Telford - there is no limitation in English law for criminal offences, but there is for civil cases (the law must draw the line somewhere or you could be sued for something your great-grandfather did as a successor in title). These particular cases are for civil offences - the defendants have already been found guilty for the criminal offence.

If someone commits GBH, not only is there a criminal offence with a criminal punishment, but there is a civil wrong of trespass to the person as well, for which the victim can seek damages from the perpetrator. In these cases no-one bothered at the time because the perpetrator could not have afforded damages.

I'm not sure what the Law Lords are going to add to the existing law, there is a discretion to override the limitation periods anyway. Just that it's very seldom used. The case of A seems a prime example where it should have been overridden.

R Horton, Birmingham, UK

Am i able to bring a case against my apoptive father for sexual abbuse back in the early eighties and my local authority for not getting the law envolved or seking justice for me when a boy pupil sexually abbused me at a school for malajusted children.Can i still get componsation for the first convicted crime of my father in a civil court and componsation from the local authority considering the school has been closed down now.Please tell me who can advise me on this issue.I would be very greatful.

shaun, Devon, England

I don't agree that the guy has been punished. He served a sentence in prison. People re-commit to get back into prison, so what does that tell you about the prisons?

When a person is brutally attacked sexual or otherwise, THEY have a life sentence. It doesn't go away just because the perpertrator/s has been given a prison sentence!!!

These people should be able to claim compensation ESPECIALLY if life takes a turn for any perpertrator and they land themselves in money. There should not be "time-limit" on cases coming forward. Each claim should be viewed separately and credit for longer time at coming forward should be given if it is believed the victim has real reasons for not coming forward sooner.

R Underwood BSc
Stalybridge

Rose Underwood, Stalybridge, England

The law lords are merely creating more 'business' for their colleagues in the legal profession. They continue to maufacture law which results in a compensation culture which our learned friends grow rich on. This new compensation avenue will reap millions of pounds for the lawers and clog up the courts at the expense of more important cases. The lottery winner should not be made to share his winnings with yet another compensation seeker. Whatever the offence - morality should not be a part of the judgment.

Tony, London, UK

As Jennifer, Singapore says the guy has been punished. But not nearly as much as his victim so she is entitled to some form of compensation. He should have been left to rot in jail at no cost to the taxpayer since he is well able to pay for his own keep.

Phil Linehan, Mexico City, Mexico

Only a lawyer could refer to a serial rapist as someone who's made "mistakes" in life. I'm guessing you're a defense lawyer?

He served his time, but his victims deserve to be compensated for their injuries. They would have been had he had the money at the time, so it makes sense that they should be compensated now.

Dalton, Kanata, Canada

The more I read this the more I disagree with the decision and the reason Mrs A doesn't give for bringing this case. This case is all about the money. If Mr Hoare hadn't won the lottery Mrs A would not have brought a civil action. This has already been tried in both the civil and criminal courts, Mr Hoare spent time in prison and Mrs A was awarded £5000 by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. Will this now mean that if I suffer a grievous injury, that I can wait until my attacker receives a big pile of money as an inheritance and then sue them again?

David Leslie, Perth, Scotland

" It's not about the money, it's about a just result"

I fail to see how you can put a price on rape compensation. The fact is that Prisoners should not be allowed to gamble.

His punishment should have been life means life imprisonment, Mrs A was not the only person he raped.

But I will correct Mrs A, this is ALL about the money. If he hadn't have won the lottery, this situation would never have arisen.

Terry, leeds,

Michael, there is no limit on when criminal cases can be brought to court, but there is a limit on when civil cases can be brought (6 years, subject to certain exceptions). The case that Mrs A brought was civil (as Hoare had already been subject to criminal proceedings).

KH, London,

She obviously feels that there is a certain amount of injustice in the fact that the rapist wins millions and she gets £5000 in compensation from the state. She is simply trying to balance out the reward and suffering. She suffers the memories of her ordeal but gets a reasonable level of compensation. He wins the lottery but has to suffer it being taken away because of his past actions.

There is more than just legal justice. This kind of social justice can cut much closer to the bone than a prison sentence.

Chris Kirk, Loughborough, UK

Those who have commented before do not seem to have understood the facts.....

Criminal was caught and punished. Victim got a small compensation amount from Criminal Injuries Compensation Board (CICB). As criminal had no assets he was not sued at the time by victim. Many years later criminal becomes rich. Only now worth suing by victim.

This is WRONG. What should happened is this.....

Criminal was caught and punished. Victim gets APPROPRIATE amount of compensation from CICB taking into account ALL of her suffering. As criminal had no assets he was not sued at the time by CICB. Many years later criminal becomes rich. Only now worth suing by victim. CICB sues him to recover their outlay.

Benefits:- victim correctly compensated from day 1.
Victim does not have to keep tabs on criminal for rest of their lives.
No need to go to court again.
CICB gets their money back.
Criminal (does not escape properpunishment simply because at time of offence they had no assets.

lance, Crawley, UK

Some of you say the guy has already been punisher, which is fair enough. However you must bear in mind the fact that whilst he was in the process of serving his "punishment" he bought this winning lottery ticket on a day out from prison. If he won the money when released I would possibly be inclined to agree to a degree. However, I think that in this case I would have liked to see the ruling be that prisoners lose the right to enter things such as the lottery. I would also have liked to see his money removed from him and distributed amongst his victims. He may have served his time now but he hadn't at the time of winning!

Leigh, bIRMINGHAM, UK

Now, it seems, it is not only the victims of sexual offences who have to carry the burden for the rest of their lives, it is the offender as well. The word justice springs to mind.

An excellent decision.

Deek Smith, Brighton, UK

I'm both a qualified social worker and a rape survivor - and I can tell you from both personal and professional experience, that it can take a lot longer than 6 years to reach a stage where you can bear to talk to anyone about the violation, never mind subject yourself to legal proceedings which can themselves be pretty traumatic.

I don't believe there should be ANY time limit on prosecution for crimes of murder, rape, kidnap, assault or other bodily harm.

There's certainly no limit of time on the memories of the victims. Those stay until they die.

Hilary, Cambridge,

The other really beneficial aspect of this decision is that it will provide six thousand nice fee-earning opportunities for lawyers.

Frank Upton, Solihull,

Isn't it great that people are ok with a short sharp punishment for an offender wiping the slate clean but the damage they caused to their victim who have to suffer for the rest of their lives is not considered worthy of any regard. and as for being money motivated - speed cameras? parking fines? wheel clamping?.....................two sides to this LAW stuff isn't there?

JG, Bournemouth, Dorset

The arbitrary time limit is clearly unjust, but I am somewhat concerned by the underlying principle of civil damages for criminal acts. A criminal conviction and the ensuing sentence is the community's just retribution.

Often sentences are inadequate, and I am sure a prison sentence doesn't make up for the pain and harm suffered by the victim and their loved ones.

But a second go at retribution through the civil courts - an avenue mostly open to the well-heeled going after the equally well-heeled - is conceptually troubling. I wonder if this is not a bit of de facto oursourcing - the state is failing adequately to punish, so it is left to the private citizen to make up the difference, haphazard, in the civil courts.

What next - reduced prison time for coughing up the compo?!

Chris MacDonald, Surry Hills, Sydney, Australia

Alex , London, you accuse the claimants of greed... do you not consider rape a crime worse than greed? or are you one of these liberals who if a man raped your daughter you'd invite him around to tea to discuss his childhood? And in any case, isn't violently and inhumanly forcing your will on another human being a sick, depraved form of greed?

Marco, Kraków, Poland

This is absolutely ludicrous.
As a lawyer myself I am aware of all the problems currently with excessive litigation being claimed here there and everywhere; so this is merely going to contribute further to the already overwhelming problem.

Legal opinion aside.. I fully agree with some of the other comments here, suggesting that this man has indeed done his time and that now he is theoretically a 'reformed' man.

Granted, this woman is likely to have to deal with the trauma for the rest of her life, and some may say that this man should be made to suffer for the remainder of his; but unfortunately that's not how the system works. He was a repeat sex offender, thus implying he had a problem with his own mental state and an inability to control his urges. People make mistakes in this life unfortunately, but in my opinion they shouldnt be made to suffer for them forever.
Especially 16 years down the line!
Why is money going to resolve her trauma? Its not going to change her state of mind.

Paul Shephard, Birmingham, UK

Well done LADY! If you did it for the money, that's fine too, hurt him back. Put his face on the front page so we all know who he is. He left prison so he can prey on lone ladies and destroy more lives.

They should have jailed him for life, LIFE SHOULD MEAN LIFE.

Pat, Cheshire, UK

I would just like to correct Brian from London. These sorts of cases are not liable to any tax-payer, this is a private tortious claim which is why initially Mrs A was required to pay legal fees.

Aside, I would also like to comment that I found the initial furore concerning Mr. Hoare’s win to be rather ironic (and misguided), given the fact it is a “lottery” I find it quite silly that anyone should argue against any winner. That is why it is a lottery!

I don’t find there any problem in Mrs A seeking compensation. This is a civil claim, which is a separate issue to any criminal conviction served on the part of Mr. Hoare.

Natalie, Cambridge,

So Brian, this guy rapes a few women, you know, completely shatters their lives, then serves a few years in prison (which the tax payers have paid for) but now he's an okay man and his victim is greedy?

Why shouldn't the people who are responsible for hideous assaults have to take financial responsibility for their actions? Why shouldn't victims get compensated by the actual people who damaged their lives?

I understand their are greater implications from this case but personally I think this is a sound ruling.

P, London,

Has the legal system gone crazy?

Yes, he has done a terrible crime, but already served his time in prison and came out as a new man. May be God hasn't done the best act for letting him won the lottery, but tough, this is life!

Now the flood gate is opened, only leads to more court cases and appeals... results? More tax payers money going wasted on greedy people.

brian, London,

I am very surprised at the decision, I was sure that for public policy reasons alone the claim would be dismissed. I guess the Law Lords have not got enough work to do already to open the overstretched, under-budgeted courts service (or whatever it is now called) to thousands of more mostly losing cases every year. I bet DLA is rubbing it's collective hands with glee at the prospect of all the new work though...

Iain, Rugby,

I agree with Shaun.. This guy's already been punished. It doesn't seem fair that he can't move on with his life. I don't believe that Mrs A did it purely on principle and not for the financial benefit. Even if he committed a heinous crime, that's completely unrelated to his luck in winning the lottery, no matter how unfair that may seem. Good things happen to bad people, but it doesn't mean they should be punished for having good fortune.

Naturally, the case is much more complicated than this, so I'm fine with the ruling.

Jennifer, Singapore,

I'm all for justice in the matter. Indeed, the convictions are all too rare and sentences served are all too short.

But, to say justice is a function of the wealth of the attacker is a slippery slope. Is the damage caused by the rape by a rich perpertrator any worse than that of a poor perpertrator? You may choose to see it as a stricter penalty for those with the means, but equally is it not a more lenient penalty for those not so well off?

RP, London, UK

This is not a criminal case. Mrs A got compensation in line with the Compensation Board limits at the time. He won the lotto years later, so she decided to claim again. I wonder if he wins the lotto again, will she have a further go? He committed a terrible crime, and paid for it in prison. She was compensated at the time (not much, but sometimes them's your apples). Imagine being run over by a medical student, and waiting 20 years until he's a consultant to make a claim.

Shaun O'S, London,

Good luck to her. His action damaged her for life, and now he's had the good fortune to win the lottery. How gratifying it would be to remove that fortune from him so he can get to feel some of the hurt and despair that his victim feels.

Jacques Francis, Westcott, UK

There is not a time limit on bringing criminal cases to court. There are time limits on bringing CIVIL cases to court (which this is) in order to prevent a Claimant suing decades after an incident.

This ruling is ridiculous, she has no right to the winnings. This ruling leaves the floodgates open to claimants suing any person who decades after a committing criminal offence gets a bit of luck and the claimant gets greedy.

Alex , London,

I know it's wrong that he won the lotto, but if all she cares about is the result, then she's already won. He got convicted and put into prison. The only reason why she is now suing him is purely for money.

After almost 20 years, money will not make any hurt or bad feeling go away.

Paul, Camberley,

What a fantastic result and well done to Mrs A as this has made an incredible difference not only for herself but for survivors of abuse. It is a shame and disgrace that the government prevented so many survivors from taking civil action and have forced victims/survivors to have to fight the legal system on top of their abuse in order to be heard.

Teresa, Essex,

Why is there a time limit on bringing criminal cases to court.

Either a crime has or has not been committed. If a crime is committed then surely must prevail.

There seems to be no time limits on crimes committed during wartime, the pursuit of Nazis is a good example of prosecuting criminals decades after their actions. The victims of crime live with the crimes for the rest of their lives, it seems unjust that the criminals are unpunished simply because of the passing of time.

michael, Telford, UK

I hope that the Law Lords recommendation that courts be able to extend the time limits will apply to law suits for damages where the respondent has been found guilty of the criminal act that caused the damages, and I hope that the class of crime does not matter.

If a lobbying group successfully gets the rules adjusted for suits resulting from their class crime, the adjustment should apply to suits from any class of crime, under the principle of equal protection for all.

The limitations period should begin counting down when the damaged party realizes the damage has occurred or reaches the age of majority, whichever is later.

It should be extended where time has not affected the ability of the respondent to defend himself.

In cases where responsibility for the damage is self-evident from a criminal conviction, the courts should freely waive the limitation period. This is a wonderful improvement.

Keith Terrence, Winnipeg, Canada

child abuse can take many years to surface and longer still to build the strenth (if ever) to report it and seek desperatly needed help, the abused blame themselves.....

tim, pe'bro, uk'cambs