Should the falsely accused sue authorities?

Question

Loss of earnings etc etc..Great News sense seen for once..

Answer 1

Just because they have been acquitted does not mean they have been falsely accused.  Once the "innocents" go on the offensive to sue, there is a new ball game.  I should advise them to remember what happened to Oscar Wilde.  The case might not have been securely tied but what is he doing with unregistered mobile phones and associating with people who have been disbarred in matters obviously related to racing.

  So why does everybody think racing is corrupt yet they rejoice at this result?   Who are the villains then and, if you point to bookmakers, how can they operate without inside assistance?  You can't have villainy without villains.

Answer 2

Why were they falsely accused?  There was enough evidence to place them before a court.  Until the evidence is heard the Judge cannot make a decision as to its quality.  Also being found not guilty or having the case thrown out is not the same as being innocent.  

Racing is a bent sport anyway.

Answer 3

Obviously as it has been a slur on his character and no doubt this will have had financial implications to him as well as no one wants to be involved with someone accused of fixing races

Answer 4

h**l yeah.

Answer 5

Of course they should, every time. That way the accusers will think twice about doing it again.

Answer 6

people dont, thats the problem! so I say go for it

Answer 7

I had lunch at Sandown with a senior figure at the RCA today, he told me that Fallon tried to take the HRA (as it was at the time) to the High Court when they suspended him from riding in Britain.  The High Court judge threw the case out as the HRA were well within their rights to do so, he would be a fool to try the same thing again.

Answer 8

Would think he is thanking his lucky stars that the Bumbling Crown Prosecution Service is still as bad as ever.

Answer 9

HAHAHAHAAH- thats really funny-they wont sue because they all know they have performed a great escape.the lot of them are lower than a tadpoles @rsehole and deserve 20 years each.

Answer 10

If it's a good faith prosecution, you're not gonna win anything from suing the authorities after you're found not guilty...  You can only win if there was some abuse by the prosecution (planting evidence, harassing you, multiple prosecutions, threatening you...).  At least that's the rule in the states... I think it would be the same in Britain.  And if you think about it, it's better that way... often the prosecution doesn't know whether there's enough evidence until after they start the proceedings and do some investigations... and then the burden of proof is so high (guilty beyond a reasonable doubt!) that some guilty people evade punishment.  If the prosecution could be sued for every not guilty verdict we'd have criminals running about everywhere...  if the prosecution wasn't absolutely sure that they had enough evidence to get a conviction, they wouldn't start proceedings.  Or they'll be so scared of getting sued that they'll start planting evidence everywhere against these people to ensure guilty verdicts.  It's not the type of system that we would actually be happy to live in.  I know Kieran Fallon isn't some dangerous criminal that we are afraid to have running about, but there's plenty of dangerous criminals that the rule would also apply to.  The justice system does inconvenience innocent people sometimes, but I think it's necessary... at least we don't just lock up everyone we think are guilty.