No compensation for miscarriage

[saaby93]

Is anyone surprised?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21195269
The article says that the rules have changed so you can only claim compensation if can prove youre innocent.

Youre the stereo typical loner minding your own business when teh police knock on the door.
You have no alibi for the crime half hour earlier
Youre locked up but released as there was no real evidence that 'you done it' only a balance of probabilities - theres no one else & youre the only person nearby.

To claim compo you have to prove youre innocent.
You were in the house all the time - no one saw you out and no-one saw you in.

What do you do next?

[Mastodon2]

So what are you hoping to be compensated for? Your time?

[CooperS]

Wrong forum.

[Mr Happy]

Mastodon2 said:

So what are you hoping to be compensated for? Your time?

Are you seriously suggesting that if you were in his position, and had incorrectly spent eight years of your life in jail as a direct result of an insecure conviction, you'd simply say "oh, don't worry chaps - it's all been a bit of a mess"??

[saaby93]

Asking generally....
If you were locked up and it wasnt you - what would you expect?
Do too many people expect compensation?
Or do you need your job and your life back?

[Krikkit]

Mr Happy said:

Mastodon2 said:

So what are you hoping to be compensated for? Your time?

Are you seriously suggesting that if you were in his position, and had incorrectly spent eight years of your life in jail as a direct result of an insecure conviction, you'd simply say "oh, don't worry chaps - it's all been a bit of a mess"

I wouldn't be able to - I hate this cash for crash, blame-claim culture, but that is genuinely a situation where I'd want some help putting my life back together.

[Mastodon2]

Mr Happy said:

Are you seriously suggesting that if you were in his position, and had incorrectly spent eight years of your life in jail as a direct result of an insecure conviction, you'd simply say "oh, don't worry chaps - it's all been a bit of a mess"??

OP only posted one example, if I had lost 8 years of my life I'd want compensation, but at the same time you get people picked up by the police and let go due to lack of evidence who then want compensation for losing a few hours of their time and the trauma of being interviewed.

[saaby93]

Mastodon2 said:

Mr Happy said:

Are you seriously suggesting that if you were in his position, and had incorrectly spent eight years of your life in jail as a direct result of an insecure conviction, you'd simply say "oh, don't worry chaps - it's all been a bit of a mess"??

OP only posted one example, if I had lost 8 years of my life I'd want compensation, but at the same time you get people picked up by the police and let go due to lack of evidence who then want compensation for losing a few hours of their time and the trauma of being interviewed.

I think we were talking about where the process had gone as far as being locked up rather than just the interview room

[Mr Happy]

Mastodon2 said:

Mr Happy said:

Are you seriously suggesting that if you were in his position, and had incorrectly spent eight years of your life in jail as a direct result of an insecure conviction, you'd simply say "oh, don't worry chaps - it's all been a bit of a mess"??

OP only posted one example, if I had lost 8 years of my life I'd want compensation, but at the same time you get people picked up by the police and let go due to lack of evidence who then want compensation for losing a few hours of their time and the trauma of being interviewed.

So where does the 'acceptable' time limit lie for compensation? A night, a week, six months, eight years??

[nickbee]

So you're innocent until proven guilty, but if your guilt is disproven you're not innocent?

[Derek Smith]

The court seems to be suggesting that although the chap acted within his rights, he behaviour in not cooperating with the police and trial went some way towards his conviction. He was not legally obliged to do so but one assumes that he made his decision knowing the full consequences so has to accept them.

If person A refused to give an alibi and then got convicted, should we compensate person A if he later comes up with said alibi?

By not going into the witness box, as was his right, he limited the jury's ability to come up with the proper decision. The question is, why should we pay for his errors of judgement, his refusal to cooperate with the justice system?

Miscarriage is an odd word. It conjures up something of the sense of corruption, collusion for the purposes of getting the wrong person convicted, of ineptness or slackness. However, in this case there seems at this stage to be none of that. The case was solid, no one lied or invented evidence and there was no apology to proffer from the police side. So where was the error?

[Jasandjules]

Derek Smith said:

By not going into the witness box, as was his right, he limited the jury's ability to come up with the proper decision. The question is, why should we pay for his errors of judgement, his refusal to cooperate with the justice system?

Yes.

Because as you said, he was within his right to act as he did. Why should he therefore suffer as a result of exercising those rights?

[Devil2575]

The way I understood it was that although he was freed on appeal and some of the forensic evidence used to convict him originally was thrown out, a judgement was made that based on the remaining evidence a jury could still have reached a guilty verdict.

That's how it was put across on Radio 4 tonight.

[Zeeky]

Compensation is now only available to those who are demonstrably innocent, or, if it is decided that no reasonable jury could convict them, Where the conviction is unsafe and a retrial is ordered because there is still a case to answer, no compensation is available. Even if the defendant is acquitted.

Whether or not he gave evidence at the trial is irrelevant as he would only do so if there was a case to answer.

[Derek Smith]

Jasandjules said:

Yes.

Because as you said, he was within his right to act as he did. Why should he therefore suffer as a result of exercising those rights?

But his lack of cooperation would appear, in this case, to have caused the false conviction. He was the master of his own downfall. No one is stopping him exercising his rights, but rights have costs.

I know a chap, knew a chap, who did rock climbing. He fell, injured his back and one leg was all but useless. Should we compensate him? He had a right to go climbing.

If a punter refuses to go onto a video film ID parade, as is his right, he then might be put on a group ID without his knowledge. It is an inferior method of ID but is admissible because of him exercising of his rights. If later there is an appeal and the conviction is found unsafe due to the poor ID evidence, then should we compensate the bloke? It was his actions that caused the poor ID.

It would be a bad thing for everyone to be compensated for their own errors of judgement as there would be no incentive to improve. However, I accept that in this case the error was in following what his brief suggested. Still, he's an adult and the decision is his.

In point of fact, the brief might have been spot on in his advice. It has given the bloke a chance of appeal against conviction, a positive one at that. Not that I would suggest a brief would act in such a manner. Oh, dear me no.

However, this bloke has been released on a technicality, one that he caused.

I've made mistakes, some when following advice. I lost a fair bit of money a few years ago. It was unlucky timing. Can I sue the government, and eventually you, for my error of judgement?

We know that he has been found not guilty but at the moment we do not know what he did on that day.

[Zeeky]

Derek Smith said:

But his lack of cooperation would appear, in this case, to have caused the false conviction.

...But his lack of cooperation would appear, in this case, to have caused the false conviction.

It was most likely that the forensic evidence - withdrawn for the second trial - was responsible for the the first trial conviction rather than his conduct at interview.

[Derek Smith]

Zeeky said:

Derek Smith said:

But his lack of cooperation would appear, in this case, to have caused the false conviction.

...But his lack of cooperation would appear, in this case, to have caused the false conviction.

It was most likely that the forensic evidence - withdrawn for the second trial - was responsible for the the first trial conviction rather than his conduct at interview.

I've only read what is in the news and the only thing mentioned with regards the finding is the fact that he did not give evidence.

Have you read something different?

[Devil2575]

Zeeky said:

Derek Smith said:

But his lack of cooperation would appear, in this case, to have caused the false conviction.

...But his lack of cooperation would appear, in this case, to have caused the false conviction.

It was most likely that the forensic evidence - withdrawn for the second trial - was responsible for the the first trial conviction rather than his conduct at interview.

This is indeed how it was explained on the Radio.

[69 coupe]

I thought through press reports he was a simpleton, so how could he been a simpleton be au-fait or his Briefs be somewhat even more au-fait what rules the 'house' would like him to follow. Surely the Police have DNA and such, for such a Hi Profile crime case they must have every bit of molecular evidence to nail him 100 percent, or not...

Edited by 69 coupe on Friday 25th January 23:11

[ging84]

am i reading the same article as everyone else?
it seems to suggest that previously you needed to prove you were innocent to claim compensation, but now you can prove that in no set of circumstances should a jury have convicted you then you can claim.
To me this seems like they have added a new right in favour of the wrongly convicted person, unless it is saying that even if you can prove you are innocent, you still need to prove the jury should not have convicted you