Is it about the money?

The Herald reports:

The father of a 17-year-old boy allegedly assaulted by former All Black Robin Brooke in Fiji on New Year’s Eve is suing the rugby star for $200,000.

Jordan Whittaker said Brooke grabbed him by the throat and threatened him when he intervened after Brooke allegedly grabbed his 15-year-old female friend’s backside at a resort at Denarau.

From all accounts Robin Brooke behaved appallingly, and should face prosecution for his behaviour.

But I don’t see the merits of a $200,000 suit, especially as the alleged assault was relatively minor – no wounding, no permanent damage etc. It makes me wonder if the victim’s family is trying to exploit what happened as Brooke is famous.

Brooke was today served with a summons from the Fiji High Court, in which it was alleged Brooke “placed his hands on [the girl’s] buttocks and groin area” before assaulting Mr Whittaker when he came to her aid, Campbell Live reported.

This is as it should be. The allegations are of criminal offending, and should be dealt with as a criminal matter. I don’t like US style litigation where you go after them in both criminal and civil court.

He said the case was “not about the money”, and the family planned to use it to assist charities working with Fijian orphans.

I’m sorry, but call me cynical. If it is not about the money, then why sue for $200,000? The criminal prosecution should be adequate.

I want to make it quite clear I am no apologist for what Brooke is alleged to have done. If he is found guilty he should be given a sentence in line with what any other person would get for such assaults.