Pay my £250,000 legal costs, demands Lotto rapist sued by victim

If successful, Iorworth Hoare's extraordinary application to pay his estimated legal costs would finally destroy the life of the retired teacher he attacked.

She would be forced to sell her home and drain her pension to meet the financial demand he does not even need.

The claim emerged in court papers yesterday as the 78-year-old widow - identified only as Mrs A - embarked on a challenge at the House of Lords to force Hoare to dip into his fortune and pay her some compensation.

Her QC Alan Newman, who is representing her on a no-win no-fee basis, said: "Her home would be at real risk. She is aware of this but is very determined to press on - it's about seeking justice."

Mrs A - who received only £5,000 from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board for her ordeal - told the Daily Mail she wanted to change the law to see justice for herself and future victims.

It is 19 years since serial rapist Hoare dragged her into bushes in a Leeds park as she was taking a stroll in daylight.

While serving 16 years for the rape, Hoare bought a Lotto Extra ticket on day release in 2004 and struck lucky, sharing a £21million jackpot with two other winners.

He was freed on parole in March 2005 and has since lived on his winnings in a £700,000 mansion with extensive grounds near Sunderland, where he indulges his newfound taste for art and antiques.

Angry at 54-year-old Hoare's millionaire lifestyle, and encouraged by her grown-up children, Mrs A decided to sue Hoare for a share of his unexpected wealth, which he has refused to offer to any of his victims.

She said she was interested not in the money but in winning the principle for herself and other victims that anyone who wrecks the lives of others should be made to pay.

Her claim was struck out by a court and again by appeal judges, who ruled that she had left it too late - under the 1980 Limitation Act, civil damages claims must be lodged within six years.

But determined to see Hoare pay, Mrs A won the right to take her case to the Lords.

Yesterday, her barrister told the panel of five Law Lords that in special cases such as hers, the time limit should be extended.

Hoare was penniless and in prison and not worth suing until he scooped his Lotto windfall. But by then, the six-year deadline had long passed.

Mr Newman argued that the rule was artificial and inconsistent, because it can be extended in negligence cases - for example if someone accidentally injures another - but not in cases of deliberate attacks such as the Lotto rapist who plainly set out to assault Mrs A.

The QC said: "It is a highly artificial law and there is no good reason why it should not be changed."

Mrs A wants compensation for psychiatric injury caused by the "violent and disgusting" attack in February 1988, when she was 59.

Even if successful, she will probably receive only tens of thousands of pounds - equivalent to a month's interest on Hoare's fortune.

Mrs A was not at the hearing but said in a statement: "I am looking forward, at long last, to the House of Lords dealing with my case.

"I've never doubted that I'm doing the right thing on behalf of myself and hopefully many others. I genuinely believe that the law is wrong and that it presently gives unfair results.

"I've lived with the trauma of the assault for many years and I feel that justice will be served by me being able to claim what would be relatively modest compensation from Iorworth Hoare."

The Law Lords will announce their judgment in a few weeks.