Cot death mother's payout battle
Discussion
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/4163705.stm
Wrong, diddly wrong, diddly wrong, wrong, wrong.
The state bought a prosecution against the woman. She was accused based on flawed evidence. Now because the doctor didn't directly work for the government, they get off scott free. The woman has had to sell her home to prove her innocence and spent eighteen months in jail. Surely she is entitled to state recompense as it was the states decision to prosecute.
BBC said:
Cot death mother's payout battle
Angela Cannings pictured during her appeal
Ms Cannings was given a life sentence in 2002
A mother wrongly jailed for the murder of two of her children said she will continue her fight for compensation.
Angela Cannings spent 18 months in jail but her conviction was quashed in December 2003 when key medical evidence against her was discredited.
However, the Home Office has refused to pay damages to the 41-year-old from Salisbury in Wiltshire.
Mrs Cannings, who says her children were victims of cot death, said the decision was "unbelievable".
Her conviction relied on evidence from controversial paediatrician Professor Roy Meadow.
If one case yelled and demanded compensation, it is Angela Cannings
John Batt
lawyer
But his testimony was discredited at appeal, leading to the acquittal of Mrs Cannings and a re-evaluation of hundreds of other convictions relying on similar expert evidence.
Mrs Cannings, who now lives with her husband Terry and their daughter in Saltash, Cornwall, told the BBC she felt someone should be held responsible for her plight.
"The fact is the money will help towards building a future for our family because what we have lost over four or five years we are never going to get that back," she said.
"It's not about money, it's about how someone has to be held responsible for what happened to my family.
Independent witness
"I do feel with my case and with reference to other cases that after everything we have been through - the trauma and the devastation and we are still living that - someone has to be held responsible.
"I have to say that physically and mentally I am shattered, but because of what it has been done to my family I will continue to fight."
BBC Home Affairs correspondent Daniel Sandford says the status of Prof Meadow as an independent witness allows the government to refuse compensation.
Although Prof Meadow was a prosecution witness, he was not employed directly by the government.
But John Batt, a lawyer who represented Sally Clark, another mother wrongly convicted of murdering her child, was critical of the Home Office's decision.
He told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "If one case yelled and demanded compensation, it is Angela Cannings."
'Police force'
A Home Office spokeswoman said she could not comment on a specific case.
She stated: "Although we can't discuss particular cases, individuals whose conviction has been quashed on appeal are legally eligible for compensation only if the appeal hearing has resulted from a Criminal Cases Review Commission referral or otherwise occurs outside the normal appeal process and is successful because new facts have come to light.
"There is also a discretionary scheme for use in exceptional circumstances for people who do not legally qualify for compensation for example where a member of a police force or of some other public authority is manifestly deficient, or where facts emerge that completely exonerate the accused.
"The decision to refuse an application for compensation is not intended to detract in any way from the applicant's acquittal."
In April 2002, Mrs Cannings was sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of her baby sons - seven-week-old Jason in 1991, and 18-week-old Matthew in 1999.
She was freed on appeal in December 2003.
Wrong, diddly wrong, diddly wrong, wrong, wrong.
The state bought a prosecution against the woman. She was accused based on flawed evidence. Now because the doctor didn't directly work for the government, they get off scott free. The woman has had to sell her home to prove her innocence and spent eighteen months in jail. Surely she is entitled to state recompense as it was the states decision to prosecute.
BliarOut said:
Wrong, diddly wrong, diddly wrong, wrong, wrong.
The state bought a prosecution against the woman. She was accused based on flawed evidence. Now because the doctor didn't directly work for the government, they get off scott free. The woman has had to sell her home to prove her innocence and spent eighteen months in jail. Surely she is entitled to state recompense as it was the states decision to prosecute.
[devils advocate]
How would the state know that the evidence was flawed? They certainly didn't maliciously prosecute based on evidence they knew to be wrong. If she wants to sue someone she should sue the doctor who came up with the nonsense in the first place.
I remember watching a programme about some chap who spent years behind bars for a crime he didnt commit. He was shocked by the treatment of people like this and did a programme about it. In fact he had successfully sued the government for lost earnings and false imprisonment and due something like £1M (he was in jail for a LONG time) but several years after getting out, he wasnt even able to claim the dole money - because they hadnt put him back on to the system again..... so he had no compensation, no dole - nothing nada, and he wasnt alone. Many of the wrongly convicted people he met, either ended up on the street or dead....
Shocking endictement of what we fail to do. I couldnt believe that this was the same country. It seemed as if the powers that be (prison service, police, CPS and everyone else) just blackballed these people and left them out to dry, hoping that they would die or just go away so they didnt have to pay out.
So, even if this woman did make a claim - its unlikely that she would see the money anyway. In fact its unlikely that she will get any help at all. Even though she's an ex-con, she wont qualify for assistance or help under any parole scheme. Its also unlikely that she will be able to claim the dole for some time too..... shocking. Third largest economy in the world and we we just throw these people out....
Justice, I dont see any justice here...
>> Edited by off_again on Tuesday 11th January 14:16
Shocking endictement of what we fail to do. I couldnt believe that this was the same country. It seemed as if the powers that be (prison service, police, CPS and everyone else) just blackballed these people and left them out to dry, hoping that they would die or just go away so they didnt have to pay out.
So, even if this woman did make a claim - its unlikely that she would see the money anyway. In fact its unlikely that she will get any help at all. Even though she's an ex-con, she wont qualify for assistance or help under any parole scheme. Its also unlikely that she will be able to claim the dole for some time too..... shocking. Third largest economy in the world and we we just throw these people out....
Justice, I dont see any justice here...
>> Edited by off_again on Tuesday 11th January 14:16
Sub-contractor mentality at work. Didn't work for us guv' - not our responsibility.
Unfortunately, this permeates so much of British business and society in general that it is having an extremely corrosive effect on how we view what people do and who is responsible for their actions.
The Home Office and the DPP seem to think that, because the expert was not on their payroll, they have no responsibility for the wrongful prosecution they brought on this woman was partly based on his evidence. It is shameful and very damaging to the already tarnished image of how justice seems not to be applied in the UK at the moment.
Justice should not be based on whether an individual expert witness was an employee or a hired hand!
Hopefully, she will win her appeal, if not in British courts then maybe in the European Court of Human Rights.
>> Edited by Eric Mc on Tuesday 11th January 14:03
>> Edited by Eric Mc on Tuesday 11th January 14:04
Unfortunately, this permeates so much of British business and society in general that it is having an extremely corrosive effect on how we view what people do and who is responsible for their actions.
The Home Office and the DPP seem to think that, because the expert was not on their payroll, they have no responsibility for the wrongful prosecution they brought on this woman was partly based on his evidence. It is shameful and very damaging to the already tarnished image of how justice seems not to be applied in the UK at the moment.
Justice should not be based on whether an individual expert witness was an employee or a hired hand!
Hopefully, she will win her appeal, if not in British courts then maybe in the European Court of Human Rights.
>> Edited by Eric Mc on Tuesday 11th January 14:03
>> Edited by Eric Mc on Tuesday 11th January 14:04
You all have so much faith in the legal system. Its soo depressing.
There was very little wrong with Roy Meadows. He was asked for his opinion on a difficult subject, and he gave it. It was the best advice possible at the time. It is still very likely that she was guilty of the crime, just not beyond all reasonable doubt.
40 years ago doctors recommended smoking as a way of calming the nerves. So they were wrong, why don't you sue the medical profession.
I would still want this woman under close social services scrutiny if she gave birth to another child. She is no more innocent than she is guilty. Don't let the legal profession convince you into notions of right or wrong.
There was very little wrong with Roy Meadows. He was asked for his opinion on a difficult subject, and he gave it. It was the best advice possible at the time. It is still very likely that she was guilty of the crime, just not beyond all reasonable doubt.
40 years ago doctors recommended smoking as a way of calming the nerves. So they were wrong, why don't you sue the medical profession.
I would still want this woman under close social services scrutiny if she gave birth to another child. She is no more innocent than she is guilty. Don't let the legal profession convince you into notions of right or wrong.
Julian64 said:
You all have so much faith in the legal system. Its soo depressing.
There was very little wrong with Roy Meadows. He was asked for his opinion on a difficult subject, and he gave it. It was the best advice possible at the time. It is still very likely that she was guilty of the crime, just not beyond all reasonable doubt.
40 years ago doctors recommended smoking as a way of calming the nerves. So they were wrong, why don't you sue the medical profession.
I would still want this woman under close social services scrutiny if she gave birth to another child. She is no more innocent than she is guilty. Don't let the legal profession convince you into notions of right or wrong.
Quite. Until you've read the case it's just soapbox ranting and not informed criticism. The Law Reports are very good in this respect because they give you all the pertinent information as fact, with very little interpretation. It may well be that the Government have turned tails and legged it, but I haven't read the case, I don't know the facts or the background, so I shan't pretend to comment.
edited:
off again said:
| I remember watching a programme about some chap who spent years behind bars for a crime he didnt commit. |
>> Edited by stumartin on Tuesday 11th January 14:43
Julian64 - I think you are missing the point. The crticism here is nothing to do with whether this woman was guilty or innocent. It's not even about the quality of Roy Meadows' evidence.
It's about the fact that the Home Office are claiming that she can't even CLAIM for compensation on the basis that Meadows was not an employee of the Home Office. The inferrence is that if he HAD been an employee of the Home Office, she could have made a valid claim.
Whether she might win such a claim or not is totally irrelevant at this point in time.
It's about the fact that the Home Office are claiming that she can't even CLAIM for compensation on the basis that Meadows was not an employee of the Home Office. The inferrence is that if he HAD been an employee of the Home Office, she could have made a valid claim.
Whether she might win such a claim or not is totally irrelevant at this point in time.
wolves_wanderer said:See what you mean but isn't it another case of that young lass Irrelevant Shirley?
[devils advocate] How would the state know that the evidence was flawed? They certainly didn't maliciously prosecute based on evidence they knew to be wrong.
The state's decision to prosecute was based, no doubt more than partly, on their confidence in this discredited paediatrician. Now it seems the CPS judgement in using that, er, expert testimony was wrong, without it would she have been found guilty? In view of her release, no, so they should pay up. This crass and unfair treatment of individuals by the state is increasingly common under Bliar's dictatorship, they claim the right to interfere in just about bl00dy everything adn then when they make a pig's ear of it (frequently) they find some weasel words to escape the consequiences of their own incompetence. Disgraceful.
I think the issue here is really about power and in particular power without responsibility. We all pay tax so we can have civilised society. We elect people to manage that process and they in turn employ agents of the state to wield the power of the people. If and when those agents get it wrong they must make repairations. If this ends up a civil claim against Meadows professional indemnity insurance than so be it, all well and good but somewhere the buck has to stop. If not we may as well scrap the system in its entirity as it can have no credibility without the responsibility. No group of people has any right to sit in judgement over an individual unless they are prepared to accept the consequences of their actions. Even common criminals apply some basic ethics to their activities. For the judiciary to dodge this issue puts them lower than the rats in the sewer in my view.
nonegreen said:
No group of people has any right to sit in judgement over an individual unless they are prepared to accept the consequences of their actions. Even common criminals apply some basic ethics to their activities. For the judiciary to dodge this issue puts them lower than the rats in the sewer in my view.
Quite right nonegreen. The points of principle are clear here. However I should declare a degree of specific personal interest concerning the context, it's this that's making me more than just furious at the idiots in charge, I'll shortly be off to another thread as the monitor will melt soon due to incandescent rage.
Of the many offspring generated at turbo towers - don't worry I get out and drive more now - number two was a victim of cot death, except that it was pram death as he was being pushed round the shops in his pram at the time, mrs t noticed that movement had stopped but by then it was too late. People around helped but nothing could be done. I was a way on business and came home to a catastrophe but the police and uncle tom cobbley were excellent.
If mrs turbobloke had been arrested, and then charged, on the basis of a nursery rhyme invented by a doctor rather than anything more concrete, I'd have been taking fingernails out with pliers. If she'd gone to jail there'd be a nice collection of internal organs in bell jars on my shelf, and I'd be in the nick as well. On our joint release, if some Home Office git mandarin started the old soldier on compensation, he'd need to borrow Blunderkit's dog. Edited to add: and his testicles
>> Edited by turbobloke on Tuesday 11th January 15:59
Nonegreen
Quite wrong IMHO. We give power to many people in our lives. We shouldn't give it ready to kick those people in the teeth if they get it wrong. You gave them the power because it was something you couldn't or didn't want to do. If they abused that power then prosecute them. If they tried to do something with the best intentions and above board and later some doubt gets cast on them due to something they didn't know at the time, I would call that new evidence, not evidence of corruption and therefore culpability.
Eric MC
Quite wrong, you are caught up in the legal points, when I am arguing morality. If you consider it moral for her not to have the money then you are at liberty to find devious ways not to give it. Take an ex-con who decides to write a book about the person he killed and earn a mint. Technically he's served his time, he's not doing anything legally wrong but he's is doing morally wrong so the government made a quick law to prevent this from happening. A little underhanded yes but morally right.
Quite wrong IMHO. We give power to many people in our lives. We shouldn't give it ready to kick those people in the teeth if they get it wrong. You gave them the power because it was something you couldn't or didn't want to do. If they abused that power then prosecute them. If they tried to do something with the best intentions and above board and later some doubt gets cast on them due to something they didn't know at the time, I would call that new evidence, not evidence of corruption and therefore culpability.
Eric MC
Quite wrong, you are caught up in the legal points, when I am arguing morality. If you consider it moral for her not to have the money then you are at liberty to find devious ways not to give it. Take an ex-con who decides to write a book about the person he killed and earn a mint. Technically he's served his time, he's not doing anything legally wrong but he's is doing morally wrong so the government made a quick law to prevent this from happening. A little underhanded yes but morally right.
So should everybody who is charged for an offence and convicted, then wins their case on appeal after spending some time incarcerated, entitled to compensation? Note that there is no miscarriage of justice here, just due legal process, with a higher court overturning a decision from a lower court.
Answering this in the abstract should provide an answer for a specific case.
Edited to add: if the answer to the above, in abstract, is yes, then it opens the floodgates to people to 'try' and get arrested and convicted, holding back criticial evidence, and then present it at appeal and claim compensation...
>> Edited by Size Nine Elm on Tuesday 11th January 16:15
Answering this in the abstract should provide an answer for a specific case.
Edited to add: if the answer to the above, in abstract, is yes, then it opens the floodgates to people to 'try' and get arrested and convicted, holding back criticial evidence, and then present it at appeal and claim compensation...
>> Edited by Size Nine Elm on Tuesday 11th January 16:15
Julian64 said:
We give power to many people in our lives. We shouldn't give it ready to kick those people in the teeth if they get it wrong.
Yes we should, and moreover in the vast majority of cases where officialdom stuffs up as badly as this, we already do. If individuals and businesses have to have indemnity insurance why doesn't the CPS? To make it even better they should be made to generate some income to pay the premiums, rather than just take it from tax.
A dose of real world realism is much needed by these detached desk jockeys at a time when we're made to pay twice for things, e.g. for road accident health care via NI contributions and then again if we're held liable for an injury rta, also for civil servant's salaries in tax and then again through handling fees for visas etc.
Size Nine Elm said:Yes. And in relation to your subsequent point about 'deliberately' getting convicted and only releasing key evidence of your innocence afterwards, this isn't a failing of due process or a miscarriage of justice it's perverting the course of justice - albeit in a weird direction - and should see a bigger sentence than the original. The Home Office should itself seek compensation for costs incurred re. food and residency while incarcerated if this actually happened, and quite right too.
So should everybody who is charged for an offence and convicted, then wins their case on appeal after spending some time incarcerated, entitled to compensation? Note that there is no miscarriage of justice here, just due legal process, with a higher court overturning a decision from a lower court.
turbobloke said:
We give power to many people in our lives. We shouldn't give it ready to kick those people in the teeth if they get it wrong.
Yes we should, and moreover in the vast majority of cases where officialdom stuffs up as badly as this, we already do. If individuals and businesses have to have indemnity insurance why doesn't the CPS? To make it even better they should be made to generate some income to pay the premiums, rather than just take it from tax.
A dose of real world realism is much needed by these detached desk jockeys at a time when we're made to pay twice for things, e.g. for road accident health care via NI contributions and then again if we're held liable for an injury rta, also for civil servant's salaries in tax and then again through handling fees for visas etc.
Well, whats the point of that? You pay for the CPS through your taxes, and you'll pay for the CPS's liability insurance, so you'll one day have the ability to claim on it and get back some of the money you paid them in the first place???
Do you just like the idea of funding burocracy for its own enjoyment
. How about them having a liability liability cover in case they want to sue for poor representation, you could fund that as well. Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff