Disgraceful; the system is truly broken... the assumption of innocence is in the bin.

JK2006 wrote:
Disgraceful; the system is truly broken... the assumption of innocence is in the bin.

I agree that the law may be wrong here; but it clearly says that compensation is for those declared 'innocent'

Jenkins was not

So if a court finds you innocent - then you are not according to the UK JUSTICE SYSTEM !!!

I have never heard such a load of rubbish in my life.

We now have POLICE MURDERERS walking around because the JUSTICE SYSTEM won't prosecute them and INNOCENT MEN who have been in prison for years being refused compensation because they are not "innocent enough".

The whole thing has gone crazy.

I see a massive saving for CAMERON and the COALITION.

Close down the POLICE. Close down the courts.

Save BILLIONS.

Spend the money on healthcare and education and the vulnerable.

The TROUGHING JUSTICE SYSTEM only exists for those who work in it - not the General Public who pay for it.

This decision is final proof of this.

Exactly my point; the presumption of innocence has been destroyed; a man no longer found guilty is declared NOT innocent.
Wrong.
He should be presumed innocent because he has not, finally, been found guilty.
A disgrace.

A disgrace,I know the feeling well,I got nothing either.
They pay out money to false accusers,but refuse to compensate those they wrongly harm.
The system is broken,but they refuse to mend it.

The compensation aspect will have to be looked at again in the light of the upcoming (third?) Jeremy Bamber appeal - where new (previously concealed) evidence has emerged.

If he is not deemed to be legally 'innocent' - but, say 'no case to answer' or 'case dropped' or 'jury unable to form verdict' - other factors will come into play:-


- it is a matter of historical record that Essex Police destroyed a lot of evidence, albeit in error; should Bamber be compensated for their errors which may have caused his 'wrongful' conviction

- if one of the three latter 'verdicts' emerge - can Bamber take a case against the polce for wrongful arrest et al? Or only if he is declared innocent?

- 25 years in jail - surely compensation would have to be applicable here...

- the Estate; this should be his - if no crime took place; would he have to take possession proceedings - or other - against the occupants/owners (relatives who gave evidence against him)?


The wording of the ruling/verdict/outcome seems key in current legislation, certainly when viewing compensation.This must be reviewed, perhaps in a higher court - requiring new and more equitable legislation.

I think this is an incredibly important decision; it reflects the view of society that it's all down to... is it a good story? Innocence and guilt must be seen in the light of that.

Rhonda wrote:
I agree that the law may be wrong here; but it clearly says that compensation is for those declared 'innocent'

Jenkins was not

A court CANNOT declare someone is innocent ... under UK law (for the last 1000 years it has been presumed that someone is innocent UNTIL they are proved guilty.

If that does not happen they are innocent.

Isn't the decision based on the notion of someone being judged 'clearly' innocent? If so, I can see why Jenkins was refused, but it's almost a non-option anyway. Unless one can be shown to have been on the moon or somewhere at that time, I guess pretty much any decision can be excused.

The wording of the ruling/verdict/outcome seems key in current legislation, certainly when viewing compensation

Certainly, this is true in the Bambi/Bamber case.

If the proposed appeal goes ahead, it could open up one of the biggest 'can of worms' in UK legal history - not only from the compensation stance.

If the new verdict is 'not guilty' (as I have always thought it should have been), the lawsuits will reach into the middle of the century - at enormous cost.

A brave jury will be required to confirm the guilty verdict in the light of the apparent new evidence; the most likely outcome is (IMO) a hung jury or some middle course - which may release Bamber, but not allow for claims and/or compensation.

European Courts will enter; perhaps, in any event. That is - if they look at cases c25 years old.

I believe the POLICE have a vendetta against TEACHERS and PRIESTS in particular along with MUSLIMS and WRITERS.

They go soft on Career Criminals and thugs.

SION JENKINS was a scapegoat for the SUSSEX POLICE who did not want to investigate the BILLIE JO killing - and because they messed it up they have tried to keep face with this decision.

Essentially the presumption of innocence has been replaced by the presumption of guilt, as I discovered to my cost ten years ago.
Why? Because it's a better story.

BR wrote:
SION JENKINS was a scapegoat for the SUSSEX POLICE who did not want to investigate the BILLIE JO killing - and because they messed it up they have tried to keep face with this decision.

Do I not remember an investigative documentary some years ago that pointed the finger at a "tramp" who had been seen in the immediate area?

...and in the meantime the press wonder why there so few Primary Schoolteachers
www.thisishullandeastriding.co.uk/news/m...-detail/article.html