Sil Fox set to sue state over bogus sexual assault case

Seems very unfair, he wasn't afforded anonymity but the female was allowed swan off with no repercussions, she surely should be named and shamed. I thought these types of cases were meant to go ahead without names being released? Comedian Sil Fox set to sue State over sex assault case dismissal Entertainer Sil Fox is threatening to sue the State for damages, after a sexual assault prosecution brought against him was dismissed by a judge. www.

independent.ie Entertainer Sil Fox is threatening to sue the State for damages, after a sexual assault prosecution brought against him was dismissed by a judge. Mr Fox (87) was acquitted and the case dismissed after CCTV evidence showed he had not groped a woman in a bar when she asked for a selfie.



The veteran comedian is now threatening to take legal action against the DPP, Garda Commissioner, Justice Minister, Ireland and the Attorney General, citing "wrongful actions" in directing the charge against him, according to legal correspondence. The correspondence seeking damages and an apology, sent to all parties on Monday, states that the DPP's decision to prosecute an 85-year-old man in the public eye was "taken without reasonable or probable cause". Any review of the CCTV evidence would have ruled out a prosecution, it states.

The actions of the DPP in bringing about a prosecution were wrongful, and a "breach of his right to a good name, and infliction of emotional distress for your collective role in bringing about the unsuccessful prosecution, as well as the manner in which the charges against him were reported without restriction". Click to expand..

. silverharp said: Seems very unfair, he wasn't afforded anonymity but the female was allowed swan off with no repercussions, she surely should be named and shamed. I thought these types of cases were meant to go ahead without names being released? Comedian Sil Fox set to sue State over sex assault case dismissal Entertainer Sil Fox is threatening to sue the State for damages, after a sexual assault prosecution brought against him was dismissed by a judge.

www.independent.ie Click to expand.

.. Slut shamming my, how we Have moved on neiphin said: Slut shamming my, how we Have moved on Click to expand.

.. So its ok for a woman to try to destroy somebodies reputation ( probably to make money ) and she can walk away with not a care in the world = You think this is Equality for Men ! ! ! ! ! neiphin said: Slut shamming my, how we Have moved on Click to expand.

.. ? more a safety concern, she is someone I'd certainly want to social distance from neiphin said: Slut shamming my, how we Have moved on Click to expand.

.. People who make false allegations should be prosecuted in my opinion.

What eejit in the DPP decided to go ahead with a prosecution after looking at said CCTV that's if in fact they even bothered their hole to do so because its clear that if they had a prosecution would not have been forthcoming. I don't get it the Gardai would have looked at said CCTV and it showed that he did not do anything wrong as stated , what the fup were they looking at when they decided it warranted further investigation. blinding said: So its ok for a woman to try to destroy somebodies reputation ( probably to make money ) and she can walk away with not a care in the world = You think this is Equality for Men ! ! ! ! ! Click to expand.

.. Any review of the CCTV evidence would have ruled out a prosecution , it states.

The actions of the DPP in bringing about a prosecution were wrongful, and a "breach of his right to a good name, and infliction of emotional distress for your collective role in bringing about the unsuccessful prosecution, as well as the manner in which the charges against him were reported without restriction". At an early hearing last July, Judge Michael Walsh refused the defence solicitor's request to impose reporting restrictions on the case, which would have given Mr Fox anonymity throughout proceedings. Why are you blaming the woman? Hope he wins.

It’s pretty disgraceful it went ahead. neiphin said: Why are you blaming the woman? Click to expand..

. Because there’s an argument to be made that people making false criminal claims should face charges. The Garda who prepared the file, and the DPP, have questions to answer too.

Public servants who make bad decisions should be fired. This spurious case has cost the taxpayer a lot of money already, and it will end up costing the taxpayer a lot more before it is over. Dame_Enda said: People who make false allegations should be prosecuted in my opinion.

Click to expand...

Sync said: Because there’s an argument to be made that people making false criminal claims should face charges. Click to expand..

. is that not the role of the DPP to root out these cases it was the state that brought the case neiphin said: Any review of the CCTV evidence would have ruled out a prosecution , it states. The actions of the DPP in bringing about a prosecution were wrongful, and a "breach of his right to a good name, and infliction of emotional distress for your collective role in bringing about the unsuccessful prosecution, as well as the manner in which the charges against him were reported without restriction".

At an early hearing last July, Judge Michael Walsh refused the defence solicitor's request to impose reporting restrictions on the case, which would have given Mr Fox anonymity throughout proceedings. Why are you blaming the woman? Click to expand..

. For making the allegation when it wasn't true. neiphin said: is that not the role of the DPP to root out these cases it was the state that brought the case Click to expand.

.. It's not a binary allocation of responsibility.

It's possible for multiple parties to be at fault here. I hope he sues them all. If false accusers could be personally sued by losing their anonymity after their allegations are exposed as false, there would be far less of them.

Some celebrities are targeted by such people for financial gain. How is it Equality that women are allowed to do this ? ? ? neiphin said: Any review of the CCTV evidence would have ruled out a prosecution , it states. The actions of the DPP in bringing about a prosecution were wrongful, and a "breach of his right to a good name, and infliction of emotional distress for your collective role in bringing about the unsuccessful prosecution, as well as the manner in which the charges against him were reported without restriction".

At an early hearing last July, Judge Michael Walsh refused the defence solicitor's request to impose reporting restrictions on the case, which would have given Mr Fox anonymity throughout proceedings. Why are you blaming the woman? Click to expand..

. Well I'm not for naming and shaming but id like to know what her exact complaint was about if the CCTV showed otherwise that it never happened.It would seem IMO that the complaint was malicious and some sort of sanction should be put on those who inflict such misery on others especially a person of that age with an otherwise unblemished record apart from him being as funny as hole in the head that is.

blinding said: So its ok for a woman to try to destroy somebodies reputation ( probably to make money ) and she can walk away with not a care in the world = You think this is Equality for Men ! ! ! ! ! Click to expand...

Just as well she is anonymous because that would be defamation. Maybe Sil Fox has a case. I don't know the law around this but it is possible for someone's reputation to be damaged despite being found innocent in a court.

That can happen even if the case were taken in good faith, though maybe this one wasn't. It's impossible to know, though maybe his action will shed some light on what happened ..

. if it's not settled out of court. Dame_Enda said: People who make false allegations should be prosecuted in my opinion.

Click to expand...

They are. Perjury is a crime. Fox was treated very badly by the DPP in this instance.

However he should still be arrested for crimes against comedy Sync said: Because there’s an argument to be made that people making false criminal claims should face charges. Click to expand..

. We shouldn’t make it even harder for women to report sexual assault by threatening them with the possibility of going to jail if they’re not believed..

. Perjury and defamation are already actionable under the law as it stands. Stories like this are nothing more than masturbatory material for incels and MRAs who refuse to face the reality that the vast majority of sexual assaults are unreported and the vast majority of those that are never result in a conviction.

.