I think that rather then the financial side of this, the fact the a ridiculous time restriction on these cases has been lifted is great news.
The abuse that people have suffered, especially as children has a profound affect on the rest of that persons life. Many individuals find it difficult to even acknowledge what happened, let alone being able to discuss this with anyone else, often for years, or decades after the abuse occured. the damage that sexual abuse and rape causes lasts a lifetime. One only has to read the heinous comments made on this page to realise that attitudes towards victims of sexual abuse are far more negative than towards the perpatrator. The lack of belief or support given by society forces many victims to suffer in silence for years, and when people are brave enough to speak out, they are often treated as liars, and this is disgraceful. there is a woeful lack of support for rape victims, and what many people have forgotten here is that men can be victims too.

beryl, sheffield,

Why on earth was he on day release in 2004 in the first place? Surely convicted murderers, rapists and the like shouldn't be allowed out until they have served their full sentence. There should also be a law in place that prevents criminals from taking part in gambing such as this whilst serving a jail term, all rights and priviliages removed.

I have no sympathy for him whatsoever, however if he had bought the ticket AFTER finishing his sentence then I agree that no compensation should then be paid because he has then paid his debt in full (if you don't think he has then the term should have been longer and that is the fault of the courts).

When we release a prisoner into society we are saying that we think they are reformed characters capable of contributing to society in some way and as such they should have a fair chance at life in my oppinion. Draging him and his family through the courts again 20 years on is a crime in itself called harrasment. Set the term, serve it QED

Tony, Bristol,

How much is she after?

it is difficult to see where justice ends and revenge starts in a case like this.

DK, aberdeen, uk

Life should be LIFE.... Sex crime is a disgusting crime and should be punishable with life in prison - life should mean life

shazz, windsor, uk

Mrs A has made it clear that the money will be given to charity. She is not a greedy gold-digger - she's clearly a woman with principles and I fully support her and congratulate her on a victory for morals and common sense.

Jon, Nottingham,

Sheef
If you work with rape victims I feel sorry for them as they get very little sympathy from you!
This man ruined a womans life and now he has money why shouldn't she claim damages? and as for you calling him a GENTLEMAN - well that says it all

Angie, Leicester,

Old sins cast long shadows ! No one is suggesting, as in the 'Sheef' letter, that money can 'make up for an attack' or 'make up for the abuse' it is there to compensate a victim as best it can. Mrs A's bad luck at the hands of Kevin Young can now be compensated due his good luck.

Carl Teper, Jerusalem, Israel

The courts have made the right decision. Anybody who has had to go through rape or abuse deserves this token.

Serving time does not make up for the crime, neither does compensation. But there needs to be penalties, for those who would wilfully set out, to do wrong.

Marc, Poole, UK

I think it's great. You want to ruin somebody's life -- expect the same. I believe it's called karma.

J. Shannon, bath, UK

This decision just makes the Law Lords look incompetent. Yes, future victims may sue their attackers, but unfortunately the Law Lords appear to have totally disregarded th European Convention on Human Rights brought into British law throuh the Human Rights Act where you can't make taxes or laws retrospective. This will mean if in future a Government of Court of Law decides something that is illegal which is legal today they can come along and arrest you if they make the law retrospective. This judgement is BAD law!

Stephen, St. Ives, England

Sheef from Orkney -
aren't you taking politeness a step too far in calling a convicted rapist a "gentleman"?

Kate, Dorchester,

How can a local authority employer defend itself against claims of sexual abuse allegedly perpetrated decades earlier by employees who have since died? If, in the next 3 years, a claimant is prepared to perjure himself by claiming under oath that he was abused decades earlier by someone who has since died and the reason he did not bring an action within six years of abuse (when the alleged perpetrator was still alive) was because he was traumatized than surely a judge has no discretion but to find in his favour.

Baz, London,

Our Justice System is a great boon and should be based above all on principles of fairness. For me two precepts are being conflated here.

If a crime has been committed than there shouldn't be a time limit after which it is absolved. it should stand or fall in a court of law according to its merits.

If a crime has been committed and the perpetrator punished, then surely they have the right to forge a new life without fear of past offences haunting them for life. As has been mentioned, if this principle is conceded then where does it end?

Let our Justice System be rooted in rationality.

Mark Horner, Northumberland, UK

Does this 6 year time limit mean that religious organisations such as the Catholic church have been able to dodge the bullet in Merry Old England? Unlike in Canada , the US and other countries that do not have the stacked deck judicial system?

w alexander, delta, canada

I think that this is just greed and although he is a despicable character and should not have been able to win the money we should not try to take it away. It smacks of jealousy.

The problem here is the law, the man raped 8 women and spent time in jail. If you think that 10 years is a fair time then he should have spent 80 years in jail.

The law should have more strict guidelines on minimum and maximum sentences and they should not be allowed to run concurrently.

Fix the real problem and don't try to simply cover the cracks.

I am sure someone better than I will be able to explain the law but as I understand it if you plead guilty then you get one third off, if you admit to multiple crimes the sentences will be concurrent and you will be protected in future.

This is not justice, if you kill 1 person then you should get 10 years minimum and if you kill 2 then that means 20 years minimum etc

joe, Edinburgh, Scotland

Careful here people.

This man deserves to have his money taken away but what this does is set a precedent of possible false accusations of rape in order to profit. Women may fake a rape story in order to profit from it. In my opinion this may be treading down a stormy path. Careful, careful.....with this new law.

Mike Andersen, Richmond, Virginia

Sheef, Orkney,
how on earth can you refer to Iorworth Hoare, a convicted rapist as a gentleman - you seem mis-guided

Philip, Ipswich, Suffolk

Arrh, paid his debt to society, I doubt it!!! LIFE should be life, so he shoudn't have been out of jail to buy the ticket in the first place!! Get the money off this guy, and even if he suffers just 1%, it would be worth it. This guy has committted more than one offence against women. And yet for him to win the lotto, there is no God...

Anthony, wiltshire, swindon,

In answer to Joe Bloggs, yes! People who commit crimes should be financially liable for the effects of these. The country would be a better place if they were - less crime, more deterrence and more justice for the victims.

All victims of crime _can_ currently sue their attackers for damages. I recently got £100 for a smashed windscreen. However, there are currently problems major obtaining and enforcing judgements because criminals often dont have the assets and the state gives victims no support in this regard.

Andrew Turvey, Nottingham, England

(( Sheef )) working with rape victims don't make know how really they feel giving a chance to any victim of crime all would vote for the right to make the one who did take there loved one / free well / health / feeling safe to sleep .. Life as hell as you can they all would welcome it 101% that it is not the money a 78 year old is after it is getting that CAVE MAN to feel as how she and 6 more other like her did feel when he attacked them it is only fair after all .
I welcome this big good news

Mr ALY, newport,

I wasn't aware that justice was served by paying out compensation for victils of sexual assault. She has still been raped and suffered, the money surely can't be thought to change this situation, so what purpose does this serve. I think it is a mistake to over rule the statute on limitations, the floodgates are open. It may not have been the ideal amount of time available to make a claim, but what will be, the law isn't a perfect system, no one says it is, but this decision is knee jerk and entirely unsupported by precedent. Why bend the law in this instance and not in another. Boundaries have to be set and adherred to. We no longer live in a lynch mob society, people go to prison and serve their time, we can't hold them accountable forever, sometimes enough has to be enough.

A, Scotland,

I think it's only fair. Men like this should have been told to "Grab yourself a biscuit" a long time ago.

Sam, Brighton,

Rape and Child sex abuse is a life sentance for the victim it is right and proper for the Law courts to give victims some redress at long last. There is no justice for victims in this country, perhaps we are waking up at long last.

Paul, Dorchester, Dorset

Does this mean that the pathetic 6 year rule will apply to raping Banks ??? when they claw ridiculous bank charges ?

Paul Stevenson, Trent Vale, Staffordshire

I have faith in the criminal justice system and know that man is guilty, therefore, he should pay. He couldn't afford to then, but he can now. You can't write off this debt! Good for her. Lets hope it makes her happy. I doubt it will :-(

James, Preston, UK

This will just add to this countries pathetic compensation culture and anyone with any sense can see this becoming the test case that opens the floodgates to billions of pounds of compensation claims, and probably billions of pounds of legal aid fees for the lawyers involved.

I'm not defending the crime or the criminal but you have to draw the line somewhere; he broke the law, paid in time, and was lucky enough to have won the lottery. If Mr Hoare had left prison and left prison to become a successful person earning a million a year would Mrs A still have sued? no, i dont think so either. I cannot say whether Mrs A is driven by greed but I can say for certain shes backed by a solicitor who is.

Andrew, Stockton,

I agree with Paul of east anglia, it is always about money.

I feel sorry for the families of those who have supposedly commited these crimes, they should not be made to suffer again following a court case by people trying to claim damages years after the event. This is often done maliciously, surely they are entitiled to some peace and not to be constantly looking over their shoulder wondering who is going to devastate their lives again. There has to be a point at which we say enough is enough we have to have some sort of statute of limitations otherwise we are in danger of creating a vindictive society whereby envy is rewarded and the innocents (ie the famlies) are punished for something they had nothing to do with in the first place. It is a very dangerous decision and one which will wreck many innocent peoples lives.

Jane, Birmingham, UK

This lady got the money she deserved. And it is not the money that is an issue here. No matter how long ago this was you never get over it. It is a life changing event which causes much misery in the future. Even effecting the rest of the family. Future husbands jobs the lot. This fiend should go to hell. His lottery money should be given to the charitys who treat the victims of these disgraceful crimes against women. As there is limited amounts of them. How would these men who left those rancid comments feel if it were their own daughter or wife? This object may have served his sentance. However the damge is done and need never be forgotten.

sharon edwards, norwich, England

Seems a bit wrong really! Suppose the convicted criminal had served his sentence, left prison as reformed member of society. Works hard, makes something of their life.

Years later, the victim decides.. oh look, a bit of money to be opportunistically grabbed! Launches the claim, wins the claim. Court requires the defendant has to pay out, costing significant assets they may lawfully acquired. Fair?

What if since leaving prison the defendant has become responsible for others (like a spouse, parents or children) are they to suffer because of these claims too?

In any case, how does a victim demonstrate to a court that they have suffered financial or material loss years after the event?

Honestly, victims should get over themselves and STOP revelling in their victimhood. For their OWN good. Money has very little to do with moving on. If anyone disagrees, then please cite your references.

Edwin, Londonium, Uk

Rape is an especially heinous crime, even attempted rape. Every man knows it is wrong. Decent men don't do it. There's no excuse for it.

Like Mrs A I was lucky enough to escape an attacker 30 years ago. I was 20 and en route from the library to my room at around 2 a.m. on a university campus in a state near Washington DC. I thought it was one of my sexist students playing a stupid prank and reacted with rage instead of fear. That saved me. I threw him down in a driveway and ran. Turned out he had 8 other victims who weren't so lucky.

If he later won 700 or 7000 in the lottery, I might not care. It's true that even a criminal needs a chance, at least in most cases. But 700,000 or 7 million? That's enough to help other victims who weren't so lucky as Mrs. A or I was. Mrs. A now at 78(?) will probably (I hope) start a foundation for victims. That might include rapists because, of course, where do they learn that sick behavior? Most have been hurt themselves.

Terry, Düsseldorf, Germany

It would be fairer if a judgement regarding compensation was made at the time of conviction in all cases.
This means that a victim has to endure two court proceedings instead of one.

Clive Burghard, LANCING, England

She's a rape victim not a victim of a bad driver.

Someone chose to rape her.

The pain of that rape will last a lifetime.

David, Edinburgh,

Amazing. And to think of all the false claims every year by women that they have been sexually assaulted. All the more reason to abuse men in the end. Liberals will never learn, and men will always pay. Quite a large cost for a simple penetration, eh?

Frank Perkowski, Buffalo, USA NY

In response to Joe Bloggs - yes, I think victims should be able to claim agains the property of someone who committed a crime against them. What is often forgotten is that the State wasn't always involved in prosecuting crime - it used to be something resolved between the families of the criminal and the victim. The Crown (and then later, the State) took over to provide fairness and consistency, and to reduce the amount of family feuding, and so now victims of crime have the entire criminal law process taken out of their hands. I have no problem with Mrs A suing her former rapist for his money. Yes, Sheef of Orkney, money never fully makes up for being victimised, but it can help, especially to access much-needed therapy. If the floodgates open, let them open. The number of rape convictions in this country is embarrassingly low, anyway, and almost always goes unpunished. The more that the criminal justice system does to redress this imbalance, the better.

A Man, London,

Sheef, Orkney,
He is not dead therefore he has not completed a life sentence! Unless you die in prison the use of the term 'life sentence' is just a meaningless legal untruth. There are very few people sentenced to life today that actually serve it and that's one of the reasons people do not respect the legal system. It has become a joke.
As for money not making up for the attack, it is irrelevant. He should not have won that money because he should have been in jail, so now he becomes her victim using the law. The table is turned and I hope she fleeces him.

David Thijm, Stourbridge, UK

An absolute disgrace. That's all I'm going to say as I don't really want to defend a rapist.

Joe, Ashington,

Perhaps crooks should only be released from prison when they have made full reparation to their victims?

imj, Abu Dhabi, uae

Good luck to this lady. I have thought for a long time how unfair it is that when a person has been imprisoned in error, and later found innocent, any damages the State awards are less board and lodging for the enforced time spent in prison. True justice would now exact from this rapist the maximum for the expense he has caused the taxpayers by being imprisoned. Somehow, I cannot see our "humane" judges agreeing to this. Also, I do not think he should have been allowed to purchase a lottery ticket, the rest of the money should go to a charity to support rape victims.

Anne Wotana Kaye, London, England

Why was he allowed to buy a lottery ticket in prison? He is there as a punishment not for entertainment.

m wilson, bidache, france

The Historical Institutional Abuse victims of Scotland have been denied Justice to-date. This is even after cases for sexual abuse against children have been upheld in the Scottish Appeal Courts. There are over 600 cases waiting for justice in Scotland.

It is not about money but the victims need to repair the enormous damage done to them and in some measure they require specialist medical attention for the rest of there lives compensation will give them the choice to decide for them what is right and appropriate to repair the damage and will bring JUSTICE.

All other sectors of society have access to Justice,
Why not the Victims of Institutional Historical sexual abuse?

David Whelan
FBGA
Former Boys and Girls Abused in Quarriers Homes.

David Whelan, Brighton, UK

This is dreadful. Everyone is entitled to have a fresh start in life. We only get one. He has paid his debt by imprisonment. This is nothing but greed and malice by Mrs A.

B Old, Northampton, England

Gentleman??????

Sandy, Cheltenham,

This ruling is definitely to be welcomed. The previous law was unsustainable and long overdue for change.The usual legal advice of don't sue them because they are worth nothing should also be looked at it. I find it amazing just how many of these criminals fall lucky and win big sums of money. If there was a judgment against them, surely the money could be claimed immediately.

Peter Hargreaves, Stockport, Cheshire, England

I don't understand what purpose it solves in this case, i can understand the victim claiming if the case had only just happened but what is the motivation now. Punishment, to make money or because of jealousy? If he had money at the time he was sent down the courts should have given her everything he had as he has stolen it from her in a sense. But if he had nothing should anyone who commits a crime be forced to pay again and again. This case is trully awaful and rare that it involves the lottery, but what if someone inherits from a relative or somehow earns a good wage later on in life? Crooks that come out of prison will now be forced back into crime because making a good living is never achievable because you might have to give it all away one day. Wonder if anyone who lost shares in bearings bank will get money from nick leason's book royalties?

A, Crawley, England

Actually, you won't see a marked reduction in crimes ; you'll see an increase in claims. Hoare's case is fairly simple, but a lot of these cases are accusations of sexual abuse made years later with no evidence, usually by people with extensive criminal records or long histories of making up stories.

There is no defence other than "it didn't happen" and a lot of sexually explicit detail from the prosecution which may or may not be a fabrication. Juries guess and are unwilling to risk letting an innocent man go free. It's a lottery really.

It's easy if you want a few quid. Get together with a few of your old school mates and agree to say one of your teachers interfered with you in a cupboard. You can get money even for a not-guilty verdict, and there's always people willing to jump on the compo bandwagon.

A commonality of all the people who say "it's about the principle, not the money" is they are always after the money. Try offering the principal *without* the money.

Paul, East Anglia,

For Sheef,

If that monster had any money back when he tried to rape Mrs A, she would have sued him then. However, now he has won over £7million with a lottery ticket bought with TAXPAYERS' money, I see no reason why she should not benefit.

As someone who claims to worked with raped women, you should know better than anyone how rape can totally change a victim and affect them for the rest of their life. He may well have "paid his debt to society" by living rent-free for 7 years but why should he now have an opportunity to live it up as his victim still has to live with what happened to her for the rest of her life? If I were in her shoes, I would do the exact same thing. You talk about criminals being justly punished. Well this ruling is doing just that!

It's about time the law started working in favour of those it is suppsed to protect.

Alexandra, Manchester,

What happens to victims, whose attackers don't have any money? Who do they sue?

The system has to be fair for ALL victims.

Jim, Bradford, Yorkshire

Even when they are looking for the victims benefit, this law overturns must have limitations in order to make it fair... if not, what is the point?

Javier Calderón, Bogotá, Colombia

I agree that it is a dangerous precedent to lift the limitation on how long after a crime a victim may bring a claim. Yet this is case is a mere exception to the rule and only applies to cases of sexual abuse. The law as it stood was prohibitive, and the fact that a woman recieved only £5000 for being raped is incredibly low. It is all the Compensation Board was able to pay, and at the end of the day it makes sense, and serves the interest of justice for both the victim and the law abiding public, for the committer of a crime to pay compensation - this should not be limited by the mere passage of time especially considering the nature of the crime, the suffering it causes and the malice with which it is inflicted.

Alex, London, UK

If someone is given a life sentence, then the sentence should be just that! No parole, day release or lottery card buying.

stuart morrice, london, england

I am sure each case will be judged on its merits by the courts, but in this particular case this brutal criminal should be made to forfeit his entire fortune.

Neil, Gloucestershire, England

I thik this is absolutly ridiculous. No amount of money would ever be able to make up for an attack that happened 19 years ago. This seems to me that someone is after money because this gentleman has some now. This man has served his debt to society by serivng a life sentance for the attacks that he made so why now should he be liable to pay Mrs A just because now he has money.

If the berievemnt of the attack was so bad why has she managed to live till the age of 78 without this amount of money. I work with people who have been rape victims and the majority of them have each said that no amount of money can make up for the abuse that they've felt. They've all said that they would rather the person to blame is justly punished.

Sheef, Orkney,

If all victim's of crime could sue for damages to property and personal suffering you would see a marked reduction in crime.

Bill, Sheffield,

This means that any future earnings of someone who has commited a crime are availble to the victms of the crime! I'm sure many will say fair enough but should someone who ran someone over whilst driving dangerously aged 17 have their house taken off them when they're 45?

Joe Bloggs, Edinburgh,