Man who spent years in jail before conviction overturned loses compensation bid
https://www.itv.com/news/london/2024-06-11/man-who-spent-years-in-jail-before-conviction-overturned-loses-compensation-bid
Posted by insomnimax_99
Man who spent years in jail before conviction overturned loses compensation bid
https://www.itv.com/news/london/2024-06-11/man-who-spent-years-in-jail-before-conviction-overturned-loses-compensation-bid
Posted by insomnimax_99
7 Comments
Gosh. I wouldn’t blame this fellow if he pursued a life if crime after this. Or at least robbed an insured bank or something
This is one thing the Americans do right. If your life has been ruined so thoroughly by the state for something you didn’t do, you should get ‘never have to work again’ levels of money.
In their defense the justification of their decision is clear in why the appeal failed. His appeal relied on providing new or substantial information that proves his guilty verdict was not just “unsafe” but a breach of his human rights. He didn’t, the justice system worked as it should have, he was found guilty by a jury but that was overturned as unsafe. He was never proved innocent only not guilty. It seems like he chose the wrong angle to attack the secretary of state’s decision and will appeal on another front.
If I’ve understood correctly, a person in the UK can be tried, found guilty and jailed, then freed years later after new evidence, but not receive a penny in compensation.
That sounds fair. /s
I know that in his case new evidence turned up to make the conviction unsafe, but still. It wasn’t his fault that there was insufficient evidence at the trial.
What a poorly written article.
Headline:
> Man who spent years in jail before conviction was overturned loses compensation bid
Lede:
> A man who served years behind bars before his conviction was overturned has lost a challenge at the European Court of Human Rights over his rejected compensation claims.
Why couldn’t they say how many years? Why just “served years”? Pathetic journalism.
I find it funny that it’s only poor people who can’t afford decent representation in criminal courts who suffer these “miscarriage”of justice(framed by corrupt police), Police “losing” files or evidence being destroyed(like the clothing destroyed by the Police in the recent case of rape where the guy spent 17 years in jail because he wouldn’t admit guilt, it’s never rich people, always some poor guy, they lazily charge, and then lie, withhold evidence, destroy evidence, get together and lie to back each other up etc etc…
Seems they need to have a tiered system
Innocent beyond reasonable doubt = large compensation
Innocent on the balance of probabilities = medium compensation
Not guilty = low compensation (average wage x years incarcerated)
I can’t imagine not providing some financial support for people who shouldn’t have been locked up in the first place. Even if they’d done the crime, if the state can’t prove their case then they shouldn’t be in prison.