The current compensation for wrongful imprisonment.

[Holly Goodhead]

What determines compensation?  Is it the strength of the appeal or funds available to the Home Office to finance compensation?

10

[scipio_usmc]

What determines compensation?  Is it the strength of the appeal or funds available to the Home Office to finance compensation?

The amount of course depends on how long imprisoned the nature of the crime (harm to reputation based on nature) and can include what one could have made of their life otherwise. 

Whether one is entitled to any compensation period depends on the jurisdiction. Some will allow compensation as a matter of right simply by being convicted when innocent. Some jurisdictions will only award compensation if there was some wrongdoing that led to the conviction.

The UK provides money when new facts prove one is innocent. It doesn't matter why you were convicted so long as you were convicted and later proven innocent by new evidence. If an Appeal Court (or Pardon) holds as a matter of law that a convict is innocent or vacates the conviction and the convict is acquitted during the retrial then he/she qualifies.


 

[Admin]

What determines compensation?  Is it the strength of the appeal or funds available to the Home Office to finance compensation?

The amount of any compensation in the UK is determined by many factors Holly.  The time in prison, loss of a professional income, damages to reputation etc etc..

As has been seen with both Barry George and Sion Jenkins, an acquittal does not necessarily guarantee compensation. As it stands with the Law Lords at the moment, they will only grant compensation when the acquitted individual is proven innocent.  Acquittal on the grounds of an unsafe conviction or by a jury which cannot come to a decision don't qualify I'm afraid.

[david1819]

The amount of any compensation in the UK is determined by many factors Holly.  The time in prison, loss of a professional income, damages to reputation etc etc..

As has been seen with both Barry George and Sion Jenkins, an acquittal does not necessarily guarantee compensation. As it stands with the Law Lords at the moment, they will only grant compensation when the acquitted individual is proven innocent.  Acquittal on the grounds of an unsafe conviction or by a jury which cannot come to a decision don't qualify I'm afraid.

If my "Forensic Breakthrough" proves JB innocent how much would he get?

I hope he hasn't forgot about this
Jeremy Bamber offers £1 million pound reward to anyone with fresh evidence that could prove him innocent


Or this wishfull thinking? 

[Holly Goodhead]

The amount of any compensation in the UK is determined by many factors Holly.  The time in prison, loss of a professional income, damages to reputation etc etc..

As has been seen with both Barry George and Sion Jenkins, an acquittal does not necessarily guarantee compensation. As it stands with the Law Lords at the moment, they will only grant compensation when the acquitted individual is proven innocent.  Acquittal on the grounds of an unsafe conviction or by a jury which cannot come to a decision don't qualify I'm afraid.

Am I right in thinking the compensation was changed a few years ago? I believe it was uncapped and is now capped at 500K?  JB calculated his remuneration at 18k - 20k in 1985:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=296.0;attach=1210

If I take the midway figure of 19k x 31 years imprisonment (nearly) = £589,000!  Factor in inflation and the figure is clearly colossal!

Not only is the figure capped (I think) but the criteria for eligibility has also changed?  Previously if a conviction was quashed the appellant automatically received compensation but I dont think this is the case now? 

Past and recent examples:  Stefan Kizsko 100% innocent maximum compensation.  Guildford Four, Birmingham Six, Maguire Seven conviction quashed as unsafe maximum compensation.  Barry George and Sion Jenkins convictions quashed as unsafe but no compensation.  This is the reason I asked if it's down to available budget and belt tightening in the Home Office.

It seems strange the criteria is 'innocent' when 'innocent doesn't feature at trial - it's 'guilty' or 'not guilty beyond reasonable doubt'.

https://www.gov.uk/claim-compensation-for-miscarriage-of-justice

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10922487

Stefan Kiszko was awarded 500k.  Although sadly he died before he received a penny    The Birmingham six were awarded various sums form 840k to 1.2million.  All served similar length sentences 16/17 years  &%+((£

David Bain hasn't received any compensation. 

[John]

Compensation for a Miscarriage of Justice

The Home Secretary is prepared under certain specified circumstances to pay compensation to those who have been wrongly convicted or charged. These are set out in the then Home Secretary’s statement to the House of Commons on 29 November 1985 (1), the first part of which has now been reflected by the provisions of Section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (2). The legislation complies with international obligations [Article 14(6) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights].

People who are wrongly convicted should be compensated for all their losses on the same basis as other injury claims. Receiving a proper amount in compensation does not restore the missing years and cannot undo the original damage, but it will help. However, in 2006 the government capped compensation – even in cases where a defendant was demonstrably innocent – at £500,000 (£1m where imprisonment exceeds a decade).

The Justice Secretary will consider applications for compensation. Applications are made and decided under the statutory provisions of s133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and section 61 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008.

On Thursday 12th May 2011 a Supreme Court ruling that widens the definition of a miscarriage of justice has been hailed as a step in the right direction by campaigners.

The Supreme Court ruled, by the narrowest of margins, that some acquitted in court are entitled to compensation even if they cannot prove their innocence beyond reasonable doubt.

But judges warned the ruling would lead to some guilty people landing taxpayer-funded payouts. Currently, anyone who overturns their conviction must have been ‘shown conclusively to be innocent’ before compensation is considered.

Five of the nine Supreme Court justices, including the President of the Court, Lord Phillips, ruled this definition was too narrow. One of the judges, Baroness Hale, said: ‘Innocence as such is not a concept known to our criminal justice system. ‘We distinguish between the guilty and the not guilty. ‘A person is only guilty if the state can prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt… if it can be conclusively shown that the state was not entitled to punish a person, it seems to me that he should be entitled to compensation for having been punished. ‘He does not have to prove his innocence at his trial and it seems wrong in principle that he should be required to prove his innocence now.’

Compensation: In future, applicants will have to show that the evidence on which they were cleared was so compelling that no conviction could ‘possibly be based upon it’. In his ruling, Lord Phillips said: ‘This test will not guarantee that all those who are entitled to compensation are, in fact, innocent. ‘It will, however, ensure that when innocent defendants are convicted on evidence which is subsequently discredited, they are not precluded from obtaining compensation because they cannot prove innocence beyond reasonable doubt. “But in a dissenting judgement, the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, argued it was right only the ‘truly innocent’ should be compensated. ‘In my judgement nothing less will do, and no alternative or halfway house or compromise solution consistent with this clear statutory provision is available,’ he said. Lord Brown, who also disagreed with the majority ruling, declared himself ‘troubled’ by the outcome. He added that the Justice Secretary, who rules on compensation, may be forced to write cheque’s for people he knows to be guilty on the basis of inadmissible intercept or intelligence material. The decision could mean compensation claims against the Ministry of Justice for a number of people wrongly convicted.

http://www.falselyaccused.co.uk/wrongful-convictions/compensation-for-wrongful-imprisonment/

[Holly Goodhead]

I do agree with Baroness Hale above.  It seems a real anomaly to me that an appellant has to meet a criteria that's higher than his/her trial.  As far as I'm aware convictions are overturned if appeal court judges believe new evidence or legal argument would have altered jurors verdicts had they known about it at trial.

[scipio_usmc]

I do agree with Baroness Hale above.  It seems a real anomaly to me that an appellant has to meet a criteria that's higher than his/her trial.  As far as I'm aware convictions are overturned if appeal court judges believe new evidence or legal argument would have altered jurors verdicts had they known about it at trial.

Sometimes people who are convicted will have their convictions vacated not because they are innocent but merely because of legal "technicalities" or people will change their testimony or new evidence will be found that somehow affects the decision.

It is not the fault of the government that witnesses change their testimony or evidence was not uncovered at the time of the trial etc.  There is no reason for the government to pay anything just because such occurred UNLESS someone acting on behalf of the government intentionally engaged in wrongdoing and this wrongdoing is what enabled a conviction that should would not have occurred but for the wrongdoing.


In our system the government has the right to try people when enough evidence exists to get an indictment.  On rare occasion there is sufficient evidence to convict presented before a jury and yet the person is innocent but can't prove it. 

If evidence is later found that proves the person innocent there is no legal cause of action against the government unless the government decides to create one since the conviction was not the result of government wrongdoing.  Innocent people who are convicted suffer numerous harms such as their reputation was harmed and they lost the ability to earn money while in jail.  These harms hurt them when they get out because they will have less resources to live on. 

It has been decided that it is good publicly policy to try to make up for the loss of income etc of innocent people even though the loss was through no fault of the government.

They don't want to reward people who may not be innocent and simply might have been released on a technicality or the like. 

So this is why the law sets the requirement for someone to actually be innocent.

[Holly Goodhead]

Sometimes people who are convicted will have their convictions vacated not because they are innocent but merely because of legal "technicalities" or people will change their testimony or new evidence will be found that somehow affects the decision.

It is not the fault of the government that witnesses change their testimony or evidence was not uncovered at the time of the trial etc.  There is no reason for the government to pay anything just because such occurred UNLESS someone acting on behalf of the government intentionally engaged in wrongdoing and this wrongdoing is what enabled a conviction that should would not have occurred but for the wrongdoing.


In our system the government has the right to try people when enough evidence exists to get an indictment.  On rare occasion there is sufficient evidence to convict presented before a jury and yet the person is innocent but can't prove it. 

If evidence is later found that proves the person innocent there is no legal cause of action against the government unless the government decides to create one since the conviction was not the result of government wrongdoing.  Innocent people who are convicted suffer numerous harms such as their reputation was harmed and they lost the ability to earn money while in jail.  These harms hurt them when they get out because they will have less resources to live on. 

It has been decided that it is good publicly policy to try to make up for the loss of income etc of innocent people even though the loss was through no fault of the government.

They don't want to reward people who may not be innocent and simply might have been released on a technicality or the like. 

So this is why the law sets the requirement for someone to actually be innocent.

I'm not aware of any cases in this country involving "technicalities" although I am sure there are some.

There have been some appalling MoJ's in this country.  They are certainly not the fault of the appellant.  If the appellant is found not guilty/conviction quashed then as far as I am concerned he/she should be put back in the same financial situation they were in had they not been wrongly incarcerated.  No amount of money can compensate for loss of liberty. 

The state is the prosecutor.

[scipio_usmc]

I'm not aware of any cases in this country involving "technicalities" although I am sure there are some.

There have been some appalling MoJ's in this country.  They are certainly not the fault of the appellant.  If the appellant is found not guilty/conviction quashed then as far as I am concerned he/she should be put back in the same financial situation they were in had they not been wrongly incarcerated.  No amount of money can compensate for loss of liberty. 

The state is the prosecutor.

Sometimes it is the fault of a defendant that they are convicted such as when they provide a false confession or tell lies that convince a jury they are not trustworthy so the jury discounts anything they claim.  When there is enough evidence to convict someone and yet they are innocent there is no blame appropriate period unless due diligence would have turned up evidence of innocence.  In the US there is a great body of law on ineffective assistance of counsel.  If counsel failed to use due diligence or was horrible in some other way for example did not even try to do effective cross examination of witnesses where a reasonable attorney would have done so this would be a basis to appeal. To prevail the deficiency had to be such that it prevented acquittal but there is a remedy at least where a conviction is the result of a lousy lawyer.

The UK offers compensation where people are convicted and later found to have been innocent or retried and acquitted on retrial.  It seems pretty fair to not allow it in all instances but rather only those where one is definitely innocent or definitely acquitted.  There are instances where people who may indeed have been guilty were released and not retried because witnesses have died, evidence is no longer available, memories have faded etc. Would you want guilty people who go free simply because of such problems to not only go free but be rewarded financially?  It seems to me the line that has been drawn makes sense.

[Holly Goodhead]

Sometimes it is the fault of a defendant that they are convicted such as when they provide a false confession or tell lies that convince a jury they are not trustworthy so the jury discounts anything they claim.  When there is enough evidence to convict someone and yet they are innocent there is no blame appropriate period unless due diligence would have turned up evidence of innocence.  In the US there is a great body of law on ineffective assistance of counsel.  If counsel failed to use due diligence or was horrible in some other way for example did not even try to do effective cross examination of witnesses where a reasonable attorney would have done so this would be a basis to appeal. To prevail the deficiency had to be such that it prevented acquittal but there is a remedy at least where a conviction is the result of a lousy lawyer.

The UK offers compensation where people are convicted and later found to have been innocent or retried and acquitted on retrial.  It seems pretty fair to not allow it in all instances but rather only those where one is definitely innocent or definitely acquitted.  There are instances where people who may indeed have been guilty were released and not retried because witnesses have died, evidence is no longer available, memories have faded etc. Would you want guilty people who go free simply because of such problems to not only go free but be rewarded financially?  It seems to me the line that has been drawn makes sense.

False confessions were often a feature of UK MoJ's in an era when police interviews were not taped.

I agree I dont want the guilty getting off let alone getting off with taxpayer funded compensation but at the other end of the spectrum we have incompetence and corruption amongst investigators, the judiciary and prosecution witnesse and yet no one is ever held to account.