Omagh bombing conviction.

[Fittster]

So there has been a civil conviction of the bombers but no criminal conviction.

Is it really a healthy situation where if you can't get a conviction with a higher burden of proof you can try again at a court with a lower threshold?

I can see why the relatives are happy with the outcome but I feel a little uncomfortable with the decision. Lowering the bar if you can't get the necessary level of evidence to secure a conviction smacks of a certain desperation to get the 'correct' outcome.

[Lurking Lawyer]

Fittster said:

Is it really a healthy situation where if you can't get a conviction with a higher burden of proof you can try again at a court with a lower threshold?

I can see your point - sort of.

But then the sanction in a civil claim is rather less draconian than in a criminal one - and if the defendants have no assets (I have no idea whether in this case they do or not), they can afford to pretty much ignore it.

The claimants in the case have said it was never about the money for them, and they firmly expect to recover nothing - it was all about obtaining judicial recognition that the people they thought had done it, had done it.

It's not unprecedented either. There was a case a couple of years ago where a woman who had alleged rape sued the alleged perpetrator in the civil courts and won after the jury had been deadlocked and so the court was forced to acquit him.