Can a defendant who has been convicted of a criminal offence be liable for damages arising out of the same criminal offence?

The authors also make some pointed comments regarding claims for damages arising out of criminal conduct: When a defendant has been convicted of a criminal offence and punished for it, the civil court is less likely to make an award of punitive damages because courts do not wish to punish a wrongdoer twice. It depends, however, on the adequacy of the penalty imposed by the criminal court. In addition, different facts may emerge in the civil trial where the burden of proof is different, and the trial controlled more directly by the victim. In an appropriate case, an award for punitive damages may be made, for example, against a robber who has been criminally punished, because a criminal conviction is not an absolute bar to punitive damages. It is merely one of the factors to consider in deciding whether to award punitive damages and, of course, the amount thereof. It is uncommon, therefore, to see punitive damage awards in cases where there has been a criminal conviction, but it is not precluded. In most of the cases, no punitive damage award has been made, as for example, in Loomis v. Rohan, a plaintiff was shot four times by the defendant and rendered a paraplegic, but no punitive damages were allowed because the defendant had been sent to prison for his conduct. Similarly, where a five year-old child was brutally raped, no punitive damages were permitted because the defendant had already been jailed for the offence. It is possible to win punitive damages from a wrongdoer who has been convicted of a criminal offence if the wrongdoer obtains a conditional discharge since “there has been no conviction or punishment imposed upon the accused” and hence no “mitigating circumstances”. Punitive damages, however, will not be awarded against the estate of a wrongdoer who committed suicide after killing the deceased, because it is unlikely that others “similarly motivated might be intimidated by the imposition of punitive damages”. If the plaintiff provokes the assault, this may be taken into account in mitigation of the punitive damages awarded, but not the compensatory damages. Such cases clearly demonstrate that there is a punitive element in awarding extra exemplary damages in these tort cases which supplements the work of the criminal law. Where the criminal process has been utilized, however, tort law usually withdraws, except to the extent of ordinary compensation.