Wrongly convicted prisoners pay board and lodging on release!

The police may have destroyed the undisclosed evidence. So where does that leave him!?

Oreo

Wheniwasyourage

The lunchtime news on Radio 4 had an interview with a man who was released in 1998 after having been imprisoned wrongly, and says he is still having bouts of PTSD. No compensation can give these men back the time they have lost, and to deduct a 'board and lodging' payment from any compensation they may get is cruel and totally unreasonable. As was pointed out, the guilty don't have to pay for their accommodation in prison, just the not guilty. The man interviewed said that he had earned £14 a week working in the prison laundry, but would have been paid £400 a week for a similar job outside. The difference could have gone a long way to paying for his board and lodging.

What has happened to this country?

I don’t think anything has happened in this country?
Miscarriages of justice have always happened both here and in other countries.
Less so since good DNA techniques am guessing tho.
I really feel for anyone locked up for a crime they didn’t commit and hope he gets a good compensation pay out.

*Oreo - you don't think anything has happened to this country? Have you been asleep for 13 years, well longer, we had an illegal war before then. Corruption, MPs cashing in, their pay increases, their expenses increase and their mates divvy out shares then take the money and run, or buy yachts and sail away. They’re like a posh mafia and we are all being conned on an industrial scale.

A pandemic which we (I think deliberately) were unprepared for, hundreds of thousands of our friends and family died, and funerals where only 3 people could attend whilst they partied the night away.

Police using their power to rape women, stop and search anyone they just don't like the look of.

The NHS being deliberately defunded so us, the great unwashed, would accept it all being sold off (again to themselves and their mates) to make it better, excess deaths getting worse week by week as people are unable to get treated and hospitals are full.

To name but a few ..... and nothing has changed?
Have you missed all that?

Germanshepherdsmum

An unsafe conviction finding has never been the equivalent of a not guilty verdict. Now suppose he can’t prove his innocence … should he still be awarded compensation?

How do you suggest he does that? Doesn't the burden of proof rest with the prosecution?

Come tomorrow, I wouldn't be able to prove that I am now sitting in my house, as I'm the only one here, so it's my word against someone claiming I was robbing a bank.

There is a disturbing trend on here for people to insist on 'facts', when the concept of facts is a slippery one. Something can be a 'fact' without being provable, and it's a well-established idea that all facts have a half-life anyway.

That's beside the point, though. In this case, the 'facts' that got him convicted have been shown to be not facts at all. I understand that it's possible that he might not be innocent, but I'd rather assume that to be true until he is proven guilty, in accordance with the Human Rights Act, and hundreds of years of tradition before that.

Germanshepherdsmum

An unsafe conviction finding has never been the equivalent of a not guilty verdict. Now suppose he can’t prove his innocence … should he still be awarded compensation?

He would if the government hadn’t changed the rules.

Germanshepherdsmum

We don’t know he is innocent dogsmother. People are assuming he is because he says so and the police failed to disclose all their evidence. I prefer solid facts to emotional media hype.

There was an ex-DPP on a podcast, who said that this case is by no means unusual.

His opinion was that it destroys completely innocent lives with the police seemingly walking away Scot free.

Imo there needs in every case of this sort to be a completely independent enquiry I.E. independent if any police involvement and those proven guilty if suppressing evidence dealt with appropriately.

He could sue for wrongful imprisonment. He would get a lot of money for that here. We are more like the Americans in that way.

Indeed.

There’s a very strong chance that he is innocent though, because the DNA evidence has been matched with somebody else.

We don’t know he is innocent dogsmother. People are assuming he is because he says so and the police failed to disclose all their evidence. I prefer solid facts to emotional media hype.

So sad, so utterly appalling! What justice now for this poor man.

An unsafe conviction finding has never been the equivalent of a not guilty verdict. Now suppose he can’t prove his innocence … should he still be awarded compensation?

Germanshepherdsmum

If the police fail to disclose evidence the defence would need a crystal ball to know it existed.

Indeed wwm, a finding that a verdict was unsafe can trigger a compensation claim. But it is not a finding of innocence.

My point is that it won’t now that the government has changed the rules.

Malkinson has now to prove his innocence.

If the police fail to disclose evidence the defence would need a crystal ball to know it existed.

Indeed wwm, a finding that a verdict was unsafe can trigger a compensation claim. But it is not a finding of innocence.

Germanshepherdsmum

There are reasons, which the Supreme Court has agreed are correct. The idea of compensation is to not to put someone in a better financial position than they would otherwise have been.
www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/mar/14/prisonsandprobation.ukcrime

It really should be.

I can't imagine how I would cope in jail, and rapists get a particularly hard time. Not only that, there is the loss of family life, the possibility of having or bringing up children, having a relationship, being there for older relatives and so on. And building a career - who can pick up where they left off after seventeen years?

And that's without the loss of freedom, and the constant control over when and what you eat, when you can sleep, shower etc.

I can see no reason why people going through that for something they haven't done shouldn't be properly compensated.

Germanshepherdsmum

A finding of unsafe verdict is not, and never has been, a finding of innocence.

But it was sufficient to pay compensation.

Callistemon21

Whitewavemark2

He was imprisoned for 7 years initially, but because he kept protesting his innocence - they kept lengthening his sentence 😮.

The reason he was kept in prison was because the police failed to disclose evidence that they had, which almost certainly means he would not have been imprisoned.

Absolutely scandalous.

The question really is - was the police action criminal?

His defence barrister perhaps failed too because he or she should have demanded to see the evidence which could have cleared him.

If the police or prosecution refused to release that evidence or denied knowledge of it then whoever did so can be sued.

Apparently the police never disclosed that they had the evidence, and as it is usual to disclose evidence both used or not used in the trial, presumably the defence had no idea that this evidence existed, because they trusted the police to be honest.

A finding of unsafe verdict is not, and never has been, a finding of innocence.

There are reasons, which the Supreme Court has agreed are correct. The idea of compensation is to not to put someone in a better financial position than they would otherwise have been.
www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/mar/14/prisonsandprobation.ukcrime

Germanshepherdsmum

The court deciding that a conviction was unsafe is not the same as saying the convicted person is innocent.

But the point is that before this govern stepped in the appeal courts verdict

Germanshepherdsmum

Deduction of ‘living costs’ is the law.

But that doesn't make it right.

Deduction of ‘living costs’ is the law.

It's a disgrace and there have probably been more miscarriages of justice than have come to light. Governments drag their heels on compensation - the post office scandal, the infected blood scandal ok, Windrush and now board and lodging clawback for an innocent man when he gets his compensation, probably after a few years of further struggle. Absolutely disgraceful.

How silly CrochetBliss. Don’t you understand that the evidence presented was , it now transpires, defective? The jury can only make a decision on the basis of the evidence before them, and the judge sentences according to the jury’s verdict and the evidence he has heard. How were either the jury or the judge incompetent? If you had been a jury member you might have been one of the majority who decided he was guilty.

Board and lodging he was forced into by an incompetent jury and judge.

Will they re compensate him for the trauma he has gone through? For his name being absolutely dragged through the mud? Will they re compensate him for that?

Germanshepherdsmum

The court deciding that a conviction was unsafe is not the same as saying the convicted person is innocent.

I think it would be safe to say that, as there was evidence linking another person to the crime and none whatsoever linking him, that Mr Malkinson is innocent.