Wrongly convicted prisoners pay board and lodging on release!

Not to you DAR

It was addressed to antheacarol55

Ixion - thanks for clarifying, apologies for not realising what you meant .

DaisyAnneReturns

antheacarol55

No he should not paid the likes of Moors Murders Yorkshire Ripper never had to pay anything and they got perks .I have always said that prisoners have it much better then honest hard workers .If they need care they have to sell their homes and use all their funds to pay .Yet low lives get it for free they get fast tracked NHS no waiting lists for them.

Words fail me.

I’ve found a word or two DAR.
antheacarol55, the fact you’ve always said prisoners have it much easier than honest hard workers doesn’t make it a Truth. It’s total nonsense.

Iam64

Ixion - thanks for clarifying, apologies for not realising what you meant .

No probs - glad we're singing from the same proverbial! 😊

DaisyAnneReturns

There is a cap of £1 million on what he can receive in compensation - and apparently he will have to wait another two years for whatever is awarded.

I don't see how that can be right to cap it. Surely only a court can assess his loss - an invidious process in the first place.

Plus the fact that compensation only allows for 10 years. Any years over that don’t count.

Germanshepherdsmum

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

Well, when the Law is clearly wrong- thank goodness they learn and change said Law.

Oreo

I read that it was an amendment put in by the House Of Lords in around 2007.They thought taxpayers wouldn’t like it if prisoners got off on a technicality so board would be deducted.

Thanks Oreo.

DaisyAnneReturns

Oreo

I read that it was an amendment put in by the House Of Lords in around 2007.They thought taxpayers wouldn’t like it if prisoners got off on a technicality so board would be deducted.

Thanks Oreo.

What do the Lords know about what ordinary taxpayers think about it? 🤔

Ordinary taxpayers understand injustice.

Here's one:
Ordinary taxpayers subsidise meals and drinks for members of the House of Lords

www.opendemocracy.net/en/taxpayers-fork-out-8m-house-of-lords-meal-subsidies-cost-of-living-crisis/

Fleurpepper

Germanshepherdsmum

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

Well, when the Law is clearly wrong- thank goodness they learn and change said Law.

The law is the law until it is changed.

Iam64

DaisyAnneReturns

antheacarol55

No he should not paid the likes of Moors Murders Yorkshire Ripper never had to pay anything and they got perks .I have always said that prisoners have it much better then honest hard workers .If they need care they have to sell their homes and use all their funds to pay .Yet low lives get it for free they get fast tracked NHS no waiting lists for them.

Words fail me.

I’ve found a word or two DAR.
antheacarol55, the fact you’ve always said prisoners have it much easier than honest hard workers doesn’t make it a Truth. It’s total nonsense.

I have a feeling antheacarol55 will believe what she is saying Iam. Limited knowledge leads to misconception.

The view that a prisoner has it "much easier than honest hard worker" is something some people have been taught by parents, and those around them, since birth.

This thinking becomes embedded in their view of life. My cry of "words fail me" is because I have recently realised they really will. People in this position often cannot change their views. There is guilt if they do and also it's so difficult for them to change. It's a "give us a child until it is five" problem.

Recently, a very elderly, sweet neighbour, who pops in "to check you're okay" (cup of tea and a chat) every so often, pronounced that we didn't need food banks "when all those young women can afford to go for coffee". I wasn't sure what she meant. But she enlightened me, telling me that, when out for coffee with a friend, the coffee shop was full of young women. I very gently asked if she knew they used the food bank. I got a very sideways look as she said "They were not our sort of age". I left well alone after that (this wasn't Gransnet), but it makes you realise how real the culture "wars" are, and how much some politicians and news outlets have given verity to such thinking.

Some people grow up with a need and encouragement to find the facts. Some simply don't. I think I've always known this. But I've begun to give up on it ever changing. I truly believe this is why the Tories want to cut the number of young people going to university. But then that could be my upbringing. My misconceptions could be just as biased The only thing in my favour is that I know that.

Germanshepherdsmum

Fleurpepper

Germanshepherdsmum

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

Well, when the Law is clearly wrong- thank goodness they learn and change said Law.

The law is the law until it is changed.

Yes, of course. But it takes the will, courage and empathy from others to make the changes. And I am glad some did.

So will he have all his NI contributions paid retrospectively too, so that he will get a State Pension when it is due?

Fleurpepper

Germanshepherdsmum

Fleurpepper

Germanshepherdsmum

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

Well, when the Law is clearly wrong- thank goodness they learn and change said Law.

The law is the law until it is changed.

Yes, of course. But it takes the will, courage and empathy from others to make the changes. And I am glad some did.

The Goverment didn't have to let a Lord's ammendment go to the vote. I am really surprised they passed it. It would be interesting to see the voting on it.

There will now undoubtedly be payment to other prisoners who suffered unlawful imprisonment and were expected to pay board and lodgings.
I’m surprised this clear injustice got through. I’m not surprised Alex Chalk is having none of it. He may be an ambitious Conservative minister, he’s also very bright, was an excellent barrister, good MP, he can see it’s unpopular nonsense

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.

I thought that the reason he was freed because somehow his defence team found a small piece of fabric with belonging to the victim which also had someone else's DNA and not Mr Malkinson's.

Police kept evidence from jurors in a case which led to an innocent man spending 17 years in prison for a rape he did not commit, judges have ruled.

Andrew Malkinson was cleared last month after new DNA evidence linking another suspect to the crime emerged.

Court of Appeal judges have now also called the original conviction "unsafe" because Greater Manchester Police did not disclose images during his trial.

... ... ...

Following the Court of Appeal ruling, Mr Malkinson said he felt "vindicated by the court's finding that [GMP] unlawfully withheld evidence" and "caused his wrongful conviction nightmare".

He told the BBC: "They had control of the evidence, they chose not to disclose these vital pieces of evidence.

"The impact has been catastrophic on me, of course, to even have had to face trial for this.

"That could have been stopped, or at least reduced the amount of time I've had to spend behind bars which I can't even elaborate what it's like to be in prison at all for something you've not done, let alone aeons of time."

In July, Mr Malkinson's convictions for two counts of rape and one of choking or strangling with intent to commit rape were overturned by Lord Justice Holroyde.

(Source: BBC)

Dinahmo

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.

I thought that the reason he was freed because somehow his defence team found a small piece of fabric with belonging to the victim which also had someone else's DNA and not Mr Malkinson's.

There was absolutely no evidence to link Mr Malk8nson to the crime.

There was evidence that another person was the perpetrator which the police did not disclose ie they hid it

There was evidence of identity. That was the basis of the conviction.

Germanshepherdsmum

There was evidence of identity. That was the basis of the conviction.

Which the police themselves should have discarded when the had they received the DNA evidence.

The CPS say: Visual identification of suspects can be potentially unreliable, given that an honest but mistaken witness can be a compelling witness.

So the identity should always have been treated sceptically.

DNA is far more reliable. There was none for Mr Malkinson, but some for another man. This should have been properly followed up. As it was, the DNA evidence was withheld from the defence. Any withholding of evidence must be subject to judicial scrutiny. This was not requested and, had it been, I can see no judge believing there was any reason to withhold this evidence.

In this case, the failure of the police to make this evidence available to the defence can only be explained on one of two ways; incompetence or dishonesty.

As one or other of these has put and held a man in prison for 17 years, prosecutions of those who investigated and brought the case should follow.

DaisyAnneReturns

Germanshepherdsmum

There was evidence of identity. That was the basis of the conviction.

Which the police themselves should have discarded when the had they received the DNA evidence.

The CPS say: Visual identification of suspects can be potentially unreliable, given that an honest but mistaken witness can be a compelling witness.

So the identity should always have been treated sceptically.

DNA is far more reliable. There was none for Mr Malkinson, but some for another man. This should have been properly followed up. As it was, the DNA evidence was withheld from the defence. Any withholding of evidence must be subject to judicial scrutiny. This was not requested and, had it been, I can see no judge believing there was any reason to withhold this evidence.

In this case, the failure of the police to make this evidence available to the defence can only be explained on one of two ways; incompetence or dishonesty.

As one or other of these has put and held a man in prison for 17 years, prosecutions of those who investigated and brought the case should follow.

Not only that, but the victim said in her statement that the man who attacked her had tattoos and a shaven chest. Mr Malkinson had neither. He was imprisoned on, literally, only the ID parade.

Indeed. And yet it seems some cannot accept the judge turning over the original verdict.

Germanshepherdsmum

There was evidence of identity. That was the basis of the conviction.

Wrongly identified.

The conviction was unsafe from the start.