Originally posted by OwlHoot
View Post
- Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
- Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
Collapse
You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:
- You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
- You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
- If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.
Logging in...
Previously on "'not innocent enough to receive compensation'"
Collapse
-
Originally posted by escapeUK View PostI believe not guilty is not the same as innocent. Not guilty means that the Crown was not capable of proving their case in a court of law beyond a reasonable doubt.
Leave a comment:
-
I believe not guilty is not the same as innocent. Not guilty means that the Crown was not capable of proving their case in a court of law beyond a reasonable doubt.
Leave a comment:
-
He would just buy another gun with it.
(he hould be given money)
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by AtW View PostUnless its compulsory insurance like car insurance such class of fine citizens would not bother paying insurance rates.
Leave a comment:
-
They should bring back the principle that the Crown can do no wrong, and never pay compensation.
Sounds harsh, but it would spawn a new industry of insurance against wrongful conviction, with premiums based on criminal record if any. So no law abiding person with any foresight need lose out, and for habitual criminals who couldn't afford the premiums it would just be an extra occupational hazard (in the words of that intro to Porridge!)
The only potential snag is that it would remove a financial incentive for the Government to try and avoid wrongful convictions, and they might start cutting corners if they were not financially liable. But on the opposite side of the coin, they would also have no incentive to suppress re-examination of cases and prevent convictions being overturned, in fact every incentive to do the opposite if someone could be released and reduce the prison population.
Leave a comment:
-
WHS. It doesn't matter if he's innocent. In order to go to jail, he as to be proven guilty, and that conviction has shown to be in error. It was a mistake that he went to jail, therefore he deserves compensation.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Zippy View PostI'm with AtW. It's a fookin disgrace.
You are innocent until proven guilty. If you haven't been proven guilty and you've been locked up, you have a right to redress (and no I don't mean the right to look like MF in a little gingham number).
Leave a comment:
-
Do the Scots still have the the "Not Proven" or whatever it was verdict? I.e. "We know you're not innocent, but we can't prove you're guilty"?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by centurian View PostIn order to get compensation, he has to prove he was innocent.
If conviction is quashed then compensation should be automatic based on days in jail and perhaps multiplied by how harsh the jail was (max security vs open prison), any accidents ill health suffered etc - the person who is no longer guilty should not do anything other than get hand written apology from the Justice Minister + big cheque.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by AtW View PostYou must be joking - it's either guilty beyond reasonable doubt or not (meaning innocent).
In order to get compensation, he has to prove he was innocent.
It's not a mutually exclusive binary option.
However, it could certainly have been phrased better - "not innocent enough"
Leave a comment:
-
I know for criminal injuries compensation (which I believe they're now reducing anyway) your compensation was reduced if you had a criminal record - even if unrelated to the injury you'd received. There was a sliding scale based on how bad you'd been / how long you'd been incarcerated for.
Leave a comment:
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- Streamline Your Retirement with iSIPP: A Solution for Contractor Pensions Sep 1 09:13
- Making the most of pension lump sums: overview for contractors Sep 1 08:36
- Umbrella company tribunal cases are opening up; are your wages subject to unlawful deductions, too? Aug 31 08:38
- Contractors, relabelling 'labour' as 'services' to appear 'fully contracted out' won't dupe IR35 inspectors Aug 31 08:30
- How often does HMRC check tax returns? Aug 30 08:27
- Work-life balance as an IT contractor: 5 top tips from a tech recruiter Aug 30 08:20
- Autumn Statement 2023 tipped to prioritise mental health, in a boost for UK workplaces Aug 29 08:33
- Final reminder for contractors to respond to the umbrella consultation (closing today) Aug 29 08:09
- Top 5 most in demand cyber security contract roles Aug 25 08:38
- Changes to the right to request flexible working are incoming, but how will contractors be affected? Aug 24 08:25
Leave a comment: