SWR - staff abuse case - found Innocent - can I sue them to clear my name too now?

[FAVMM]

Hi everyone. 

 

I was taken to court on two occasions by SWR last year.

 

The first court case was adjourned, and I had to return to the court in February this year gone. 

 

I was found innocent on all charges and as a result was issued with expenses payments for my travel and other expenses which I incurred. 

 

I am now looking to counter claim SWR as to have my name cleared as well as setting a marker for others who may have experienced similar issues with SWR. 

 

I am wondering if anyone on here can give me some direction in regard to how do I move forward from here. 

 

Kind regards.

[FTMDave]

Could you give us a brief, bullet point account of what actually happened with the station guard.  Not a long description, just to have an initial idea. 

 

Plus what were you charged with?  Threatening behaviour?

[dx100uk]

defamation is a very big hurdle to jump.

 

 

[honeybee13]

Hi.

 

You say you want to clear your name - hasn't the court already done that by finding you innocent?

 

HB

[unclebulgaria67]

Why would any rail company take anyone to court on two occasions without good reason ?   Most people just want to travel from A to B without any hassle.  

 

So before you think about trying to sue the rail company, you need to consider your actions, that led to you being taken to Court.  Remember that any Judge would be considering anything that is relevant, including actions by all parties involved.   

 

You have already received payment of expenses, so why do you think a Court would consider any other compensation as being due ?

[Ethel Street]

51 minutes ago, unclebulgaria67 said:

Why would any rail company take anyone to court on two occasions without good reason ?   

 

I think it was one case but two hearings (it was adjourned after initial hearing but look like when OP went back to court it was a continuation of the same case).

 

I agree with you, criminal courts say the prosecution (SWR) pay costs if you are found not guilty and they have done that. They don't pay compensation.

[BazzaS]

OP wasn't "found innocent", but was found "not guilty". "Not guilty" is a verdict in a criminal case, and is per the 'criminal standard of proof' : beyond all reasonable doubt.

Any case against the TOC would be a civil case, and would be on the 'civil standard of proof': which is 'on balance of probability'.

 

So, defending a criminal case means they couldn't prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, not that they were wrong to bring the case. Being acquitted doesn't mean you'd automatically succeed in a civil case (though the opposite is true : being found guilty in a criminal case allows almost certain success in a civil case by a wronged party).