Home  Forums |
|
|
|
|
Topic History of: Our crusade goes on...
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)
|
Rich |
The system seems to have been deliberately gamed against such people. I was shocked to read that man's story.
If you have had your conviction quashed in a court of law by the judiciary what more should you expect, you have been completely and legally cleared and are therefore innocent in the eyes of the law. Yet this is not good enough for the government.
With a former DPP as PM you'd like to think that Starmer would be all over this kind of injustice now he's in power politically.
Shame on the Cameron Clegg coalition government for creating such a situation. It must be reversed. Even for those who do get compensation they are so shameless and grotesque they grab back a large slice for board and lodging at her/his majesty's pleasure in prison out of it for a place you should never have been in the first place.
I can't begin to imagine how bitter people like this must feel, I'm angry just reading about it and what it says about our governance in this supposedly free and fair pleasant land of ours. |
|
Green Man |
It's scary how many people are locked for doing nothing, especially if they have an alibi that can't be proven.
You could be at home on your own watching TV for the evening but you have to prove it to Mr Good and Bad Cop. They ask what did you watch, what happened, what time was is it as they go through a TV guide. As they think you did you a crime, most people have TV on for background more than anything else, women tend to watch more than men.
Not forgetting politcal prisoners. |
|
Jo |
...A five-year legal battle had culminated in the Court of Appeal finding his conviction unsafe. Brian's legal team produced a detailed defence including new witnesses and fresh forensic evidence, at a three-week retrial in 2023. The jury unanimously returned a verdict of "not guilty" in just over an hour.
...However, following a small but significant law change in 2014, if a victim of a miscarriage of justice in England and Wales wants to receive compensation, they must not only be cleared, but also demonstrate they are innocent - in effect "reversing the burden of proof", according to Brian's barrister, Stephen Vullo KC.
"It's an almost impossibly high hurdle over which very few people can jump," he says.
About 93% of applications for compensation have been rejected by the Ministry of Justice since 2016, government figures show.
Mr Vullo believes the legislation change was designed so that money would not be paid out. "It's not by accident, it's by design," he says.
It looks as if Stephen Vullo was very effective in Brian Buckle's case too. Stephen Vullo defended Dave Lee Travis, getting him acquitted of all but one accusation, and got Rolf Harris acquitted in his second and third trials and one count overturned on appeal. The private investigator William Merritt worked alongside him on both cases. If Stephen Vullo had defended Rolf Harris in his first trial and if William Merritt had worked alongside him then too, I think it's very likely that he would never have been convicted. William Merritt's book "Rolf Harris: The defence team's special investigator reveals the truth behind the trials" is a fascinating read.
Interview with William Merritt:
www.newstalkzb.co.nz/podcasts/the-leight...71-august-31st-2022/ |
|
JK2006 |
Yes it's been 25 years I've been fighting this battle with, sadly, very little effect. Just today I had a letter from the CCRC apologising for the delay in making a decision on my 2001 wrongful conviction (promised in 2024) and hoping to deal with it this year. The system is not just broken but shattered. |
|
Wyot |
Good lord.
I had no idea people wrongly convicted then have to prove their innocence - even where it is acknowledged that they are innocent (presumably innocent has more than one definition?) - in order to receive compensation.
And to do so "beyond reasonable doubt".
So they are innocent but have permanently lost the presumption of innocence against that particular crime? Where it was for the prosecution to demonstrate their guilt "beyond reasonable doubt".
1.Criminal Justice system messes up.
2. Presumption of Innocence is removed and replaced (with no explanation why) with presumption of guilt.
3. The innocent person must then use the same flawed standard to prove their innocence of a crime they are innocent of.
I'm glad I could clear this up for us all.
..  |
|
|
|
