Criminal v Civil Litigation
There are some areas of law, such as fraud, where both civil and criminal law apply and where redress is possible.
The difference between the two main routes of recourse available to clients in the civil and criminal law arena is often confusing to lay people. Here, we make the distinction between the two and to explain when the different routes are applicable.
Which rules apply ?
The first distinction are the Rules under which each are governed. Criminal procedures are governed by the Criminal Procedure Rules and civil procedures are governed by the Civil Procedure Rules.
Although these rules are separate, they do have numerous common denominators. The Rules set out how the Court should deal with each case and what factors they should take into account when moving forward with a case. For example when following the Overriding Objective for both criminal and civil cases, the court must act in a way which ensures that each party to the case is on an equal footing and in a manner which does not incur unnecessary expense for the parties. The court must act proportionately as to the amount of money involved in the case, the importance of the case and the complexity of the issues and must act expeditiously and fairly. However, despite the similar set of rules that govern criminal and civil cases, the likeness usually ends there and some of the key differences are highlighted below.
Criminal cases are usually brought by a government agency, on behalf of the Crown. It is the duty of the Crown to ensure that the welfare of the public is protected. For example, where a fraud is committed, it is the Crown’s duty to ensure the offender is brought to justice as it would be considered in the public interest to litigate. Prosecuting an offender is the first step towards obtaining justice for the victim. However, civil cases are usually brought by a private individual or a business, in order to remedy a breach of contract, breach of warranty, breach of fiduciary duty, to settle a landlord and tenant dispute or to settle a property dispute such as trespass and bringing a claim is usually the last resort for these people or businesses.
Standard of proof
The standard of proof required in civil and criminal cases is also different, with the criminal standard of proof being much higher, namely that the court must be satisfied ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ that the defendant is guilty of the crime. If the degree of doubt of guilt remaining would affect a reasonable person’s view that the offender is not guilty, then the court must acquit the offender. Conversely, in the civil arena, the court decides guilt on a balance of probabilities, meaning that the court has found, on hearing all the evidence, that one side’s case was more probable than not.
Remedies
Another difference comes in the form of remedies in each court. The purpose of sentencing and the consequential remedies in the criminal court is to punish the person committing the crime, to encourage the reduction of crime, to aid the rehabilitation of the offender, to protect the public and to encourage reparation by the offender to their victim. Therefore, the offender can be punished by way of a custodial sentence, community orders or fines and can be ordered to pay their victim compensation or a victim surcharge, together with paying their legal costs.
On the other hand, the main aim in the civil court is to place the wronged party in to the position it was prior to the actions of the guilty party, so the main remedies would be financial, i.e damages to return a party to their pre action position or perhaps an injunction to stop the offending party from carrying out certain actions which were damaging to the other party’s business. However, it is worth checking that the offending party is able to pay your costs before taking them to court or the whole exercise could be a very expensive waste of time.
Darlingtons Solicitors advise on all aspects of fraud and litigation, please get in touch for further information.