Wrongly convicted prisoners pay board and lodging on release!

foxie48

Allsorts

He won’t have to pay board and lodging, that’s a definite, he’s lost so many years due to injustice, nothing makes up for that though.

Where have you found this confirmed, Allsorts tbh I think it's unlikely but I've yet to find a proper conformation anywhere.

Duh confirmation!

foxie48

Germanshepherdsmum

Don’t you think he’s just looking to be popular?
I’m truly amazed that people here don’t understand the concept of not deducting living expenses amounting to a double payment by the taxpayer.

That's rather patronising, I absolutely understand that concept as I am sure most other posters will too. Fortunately, I think most of us are rather less interested in getting our taxes back than ensuring that people are dealt with humanely and
fairly because we are a civilised society and recognise when others have suffered injustice.

Very well said.

Allsorts

He won’t have to pay board and lodging, that’s a definite, he’s lost so many years due to injustice, nothing makes up for that though.

Where have you found this confirmed, Allsorts tbh I think it's unlikely but I've yet to find a proper conformation anywhere.

He won’t have to pay board and lodging, that’s a definite, he’s lost so many years due to injustice, nothing makes up for that though.

Latest I head was that the Home Secretary said that there were no plans to change the current system regarding the claw back! Absolutely appalling!

Also, I think that when someone has been wrongfully imprisoned, whether that is because of a technicality or because they were wrongfully convicted in the first place, there has to be real compensation, otherwise the message is that it is ok to send people to jail when they are not guilty (whether that means they didn't do it or that there is not enough evidence, but someone has decided that nevertheless they are guilty).

In a legal system largely based on consent, it is important that people believe that they can expect justice.

GSM my understanding is that the Court concluded this was a miscarriage of justice. There was no DNA evidence linking Andrew Malkinson to the crime. DNA linked to a man who is on the police data base. The conviction wasn’t unsound on a legal technically. It was found to have been just wrong.
Am I reading the news reports incorrectly.

I’m aware of more than one rape conviction overturned on a technically, resulting in dangerous men being seen as having been proved innocent. Andrew Malkinson’s case seems clear cut, it was a miscarriage of justice.

That's fair enough, GSM; but just as you think that people don't understand the way in which compensation is awarded, people are saying that you don't seem to understand that our view is that however those decisions are arrived at they are extremely unfair.

I think that people do understand what you are saying (why wouldn't we?) but that doesn't mean that we have to agree with it, whether you like that or not.

How many times must I say that a finding of unsafe conviction is not a not guilty verdict?

Living expenses paid by the taxpayer are deducted from compensation calculated by an independent assessor. I have posted links which explain why this is and don’t intend to argue the point further. Whether you like the legal position or not, whether or not you think that the appellant’s saving in living costs should be ignored, is not my concern.

You don’t forcibly wrongly imprison someone, then charge them for the privilege 😄😄 it is just plain wrong.

Germanshepherdsmum

Don’t you think he’s just looking to be popular?
I’m truly amazed that people here don’t understand the concept of not deducting living expenses amounting to a double payment by the taxpayer.

I think we understand the what the law is and understand the reasoning behind it.
Perhaps we just think it unreasonable. 🙂
How does anyone know just how much a wrongly convicted person might have earned when they were imprisoned?

Robert Rinder doesn't need to try to make himself popular.
He already is!!

How do they calculate these costs? Do they get a deduction if their cell is freezing or the food is inedible?
What is the rent on a cell per month?

Some very clearly do not understand the concept of compensation. Nor do some understand that a finding of an unsafe decision is not a finding of innocence- no matter how many times I say that some, such as BazingaGranny just don’t understand that.

Germanshepherdsmum

Whatever you do or don’t like about it, the law is the law.

I was replying to your assumption that people didn't understand the concept and I am totally aware that the law is the law, again rather patronising!

Whatever you do or don’t like about it, the law is the law.

Germanshepherdsmum

Don’t you think he’s just looking to be popular?
I’m truly amazed that people here don’t understand the concept of not deducting living expenses amounting to a double payment by the taxpayer.

That's rather patronising, I absolutely understand that concept as I am sure most other posters will too. Fortunately, I think most of us are rather less interested in getting our taxes back than ensuring that people are dealt with humanely and
fairly because we are a civilised society and recognise when others have suffered injustice.

Don’t you think he’s just looking to be popular?
I’m truly amazed that people here don’t understand the concept of not deducting living expenses amounting to a double payment by the taxpayer.

This appalling rule that people serving prison sentences and are then found innocent need to retrospectively pay for their ‘board and lodging’ seems Dickensian at the very least. It seems to add terrible insult to unjustly.

PS here is Judge Robert Rinder’s view

I’m relieved this man has been released from his life licence. The Judge made clear he was innocent.

His case is very different from those where a legal technicality enables a rapist to walk amongst us

Dispicable. What a way to be treated. Thank god we don't have hangings anymore!!!

Oreo

It was a policy endorsed by The House Of Lords foxie48

The HOLs can only delay legislation whilst asking for amendments, parliament makes laws.

Please don’t blame me for trying to explain how it works!

Germanshepherdsmum

Why don’t you read the links I’ve posted? Why do people on Gransnet think they know better than the Supreme Court?

Perhaps because we are not bound by legal argument? It is not unusual for the Supreme court to uphold a point of law but suggest it needs changing. They don't make the laws, parliament does that.

It was a policy endorsed by The House Of Lords foxie48

Germanshepherdsmum

He has been denied earnings but he hasn’t had to spend money on the usual living expenses. There is logic to the argument if you think about it - the taxpayer is reimbursed for the living costs they have paid and he has a lump sum to recompense him for his inability to save- but I don’t make the rules so don’t blame me!

He's been denied everything not just the ability to earn a living. He's been denied the opportunity to live his own life, have a relationship, have children, visit friends and family, grow some flowers, plant a tree, eat a Mcdonalds (if he wanted to), take a trip to the sea or go abroad etc etc anything that makes life worth living and since leaving prison he has had to live with the shadow of a serious conviction hanging over him. IMO there is no logic to this, it seems vindictive and unjust. tbh I don't care which political party decided this was a good idea but it "stinks" !

Why don’t you read the links I’ve posted? Why do people on Gransnet think they know better than the Supreme Court?