Reply to: 'not innocent enough to receive compensation'

[tractor]

...

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.

I had to laugh at that bit.

[OwlHoot]

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.

In principle that's correct, and you're stating the bleedin' obvious. But in law, an acquital is and should be treated as innocent.

[escapeUK]

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.

[minestrone]

He would just buy another gun with it.







(he hould be given money)

[AtW]

If it was lumped in with Life insurance, say, or general accident cover, for a couple of quid extra a month, I imagine most people would opt for it.

I think not

[OwlHoot]

Unless its compulsory insurance like car insurance such class of fine citizens would not bother paying insurance rates.

If it was lumped in with Life insurance, say, or general accident cover, for a couple of quid extra a month, I imagine most people would opt for it.

[AtW]

So no law abiding person with any foresight need lose out

Unless its compulsory insurance like car insurance such class of fine citizens would not bother paying insurance rates.

[OwlHoot]

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.

[VectraMan]

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.

[Uncle Albert]

I'm with AtW. It's a fookin disgrace.

+1

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).

[Zippy]

I'm with AtW. It's a fookin disgrace.

[Ticktock]

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"?

[AtW]

In order to get compensation, he has to prove he was innocent.

Really?!?! WTF

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.

[centurian]

You must be joking - it's either guilty beyond reasonable doubt or not (meaning innocent).

In order to avoid being convicted, he has to prevent the prosecution from proving he is guilty

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"

[mudskipper]

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.