Mum told to pay daughter's killer £40K fees

[Still Waters]

A murdered woman's mother has been told to pay her daughter's killer £40,000 in legal fees.

Marie McCourt has been ordered to pay Ian Simms' costs after a High Court bid to stop his release from prison failed.

Simms was jailed in 1989 for the murder of 22-year-old Helen McCourt on Merseyside and has never revealed where her body was hidden.

The court ruled money raised through Mrs McCourt's crowdfunding page would be used to cover costs.

Mrs McCourt, who has campaigned for a law which would deny parole to killers who refuse to disclose the location of their victim's body, said "it seems unfair that I have to pay his costs but that's what's happened".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-54056166

[quillius]

what has this world come to......poor lady!

[RoofGardener]

This just seems so WRONG ? 

[RAyMO]

1 hour ago, Still Waters said:

Marie McCourt has been ordered to pay Ian Simms' costs after a High Court bid to stop his release from prison failed.

yes it seems wrong and immoral and distasteful

but it is the logical outcome of how our court system works

set aside the terrible nature of this case and look at it more generally

I take a case against Fred. Both Fred and I run up legal bills contesting the case. Fred wins, or more more precisely I lose, because the courts don't find in my favour. Why should Fred be out the legal fees he only incurred because I took the case against him. 

Edited September 7, 2020 by RAyMO

[Stiff]

24 minutes ago, RAyMO said:

yes it seems wrong and immoral and distasteful

but it is the logical outcome of how our court system works

set aside the terrible nature of this case and look at it more generally

I take a case against Fred. Both Fred and I run up legal bills contesting the case. Fred wins, or more more precisely I lose, because the courts don't find in my favour. Why should Fred be out the legal fees he only incurred because I took the case against him. 

Because in this case, Fred is a lowlife scumbag prick and should never be released until giving the whereabouts of the poor girls remains. He should rot in jail.

[RAyMO]

9 minutes ago, Stiff said:

Because in this case, Fred is a lowlife scumbag prick and should never be released until giving the whereabouts of the poor girls remains. He should rot in jail.

Not arguing against that 

[zep73]

1 hour ago, RAyMO said:

yes it seems wrong and immoral and distasteful

but it is the logical outcome of how our court system works

set aside the terrible nature of this case and look at it more generally

I take a case against Fred. Both Fred and I run up legal bills contesting the case. Fred wins, or more more precisely I lose, because the courts don't find in my favour. Why should Fred be out the legal fees he only incurred because I took the case against him. 

1 hour ago, Stiff said:

Because in this case, Fred is a lowlife scumbag prick and should never be released until giving the whereabouts of the poor girls remains. He should rot in jail.

And let's not forget he's a convicted killer. He was found guilty in a court. That does not necessarily mean he did the crime. If he pleaded not guilty, and he really didn't do it, he has no way of knowing where the body is, and he's also a victim himself.

The problem here is with the law itself. A law that has worked flawlessly in most of the world for many decades, but could benefit from adding some exceptions to the rule of 'loser pays costs'.

[RAyMO]

16 minutes ago, zep73 said:

but could benefit from adding some exceptions to the rule of 'loser pays costs'.

yip - this case being a prime example

[Setton]

2 hours ago, zep73 said:

And let's not forget he's a convicted killer. He was found guilty in a court. That does not necessarily mean he did the crime. If he pleaded not guilty, and he really didn't do it, he has no way of knowing where the body is, and he's also a victim himself.

The problem here is with the law itself. A law that has worked flawlessly in most of the world for many decades, but could benefit from adding some exceptions to the rule of 'loser pays costs'.

Absolutely. But then who does pay the costs?

Edited September 7, 2020 by Setton

[zep73]

2 minutes ago, Setton said:

Absolutely. But then who does pay the costs?

That's obviously not for me to decide, but if it was, I'd say that only the original prosecutor should be able to make a case against the release of a murder convict. If that was the rule, the mother would never have been able to make the case in the first place, and could thereby not lose and hang on the bill.
She would then only have had the choice to convince the prosecution to make the case, and they would only do that, if they saw an opportunity to win.

[Setton]

5 minutes ago, zep73 said:

That's obviously not for me to decide, but if it was, I'd say that only the original prosecutor should be able to make a case against the release of a murder convict. If that was the rule, the mother would never have been able to make the case in the first place, and could thereby not lose and hang on the bill.
She would then only have had the choice to convince the prosecution to make the case, and they would only do that, if they saw an opportunity to win.

Obviously. I was just curious what your alternative solution would be. Thanks for explaining it.

[Knob Oddy]

What if a killer is wrongfully convicted and therefore cannot know where the body is? Then surely the proposed law (by the woman who took this case) would be such a gross breach of human rights by preventing a person ever getting out of jail. Similarly, if remorse is a factor, then innocent people who have been convicted will have absolutely no remorse.

If you are going to court to prevent a convicted killer from being released contrary to the current law, then you take the outcome of the court. I know i would probably do the same if i were in this woman's position.

[itsnotoutthere]

I would presume that the £40,000 doesn't go to the killer but in fact goes to his lawyers. They, are the ones that win in these situations.

[Setton]

45 minutes ago, itsnotoutthere said:

I would presume that the £40,000 doesn't go to the killer but in fact goes to his lawyers. They, are the ones that win in these situations.

They are the ones that win in all court cases.

[psyche101]

18 hours ago, seanjo said:

That is a disgrace, a farcical disgrace! I hope she can appeal...

It would seem not.

Last week High Court judges refused to order a review of Simms' release and said a Parole Board decision "involved no arguable public law error".

Yet Helens law passed in March which would have rendered him unable to apply for parole, but this case missed the deadline. Seems like pretty crappy bureaucracy. Something those judges ought to be ashamed of. A breakdown of justice. This is how the justice system gets a bad name. People like this.