Justice Not Done?

spen666

Imagine this scenario.

You are arrested by police and charged with murder- say after people identify you as being involved in a fight outside a pub where someone dies. You were in pub, but not involved in any disorder at all.

You are interviewed, picked out by witnesses at an ID parade and then charged with murder.

Because of the serious nature of the offence alleged, you are refused bail and remanded in custody [ normal for a murder case]. You remain in custody until the case comes for trial some 10-12 months later. At that trial, you are acquitted by the jury.

No impropriety attaches to the police or prosecution- they conducted case properly.


Imagine 12 months on remand- you will almost certainly have lost your job/ business, your home will no doubt have been repossessed. Your partner may or may not have remained true to you.

What compensation do you think you will get for those 12 months locked up waiting trial.



Believe it or not you get no compensation at all. Can this be justice?

ddraver

Is that where you ve been spen?! :P :P

Brains

What percentage of people held in remand for say more than 2 weeks are aquitted on the basis of being innocent (as opposed to being aquitted on a technicality) ?

Are we talking dozens or thousands of people per year ?

spen666

Brains wrote:

What percentage of people held in remand for say more than 2 weeks are aquitted on the basis of being innocent (as opposed to being aquitted on a technicality) ?

Are we talking dozens or thousands of people per year ?

There is no such thing as being acquitted on a technicality- you are either guilty or not

The numbers are irrelevant- if it happens to YOU - it is no less of a loss if it also happened to say 1000 other people


I should make clear the scenario is different if you are convicted and then cleared on appeal- you do get compensation then- for the post conviction time

rustychisel

You're fishing Spen. What's your point? And now you're arguing against your own fishing expedition.

spen666

rustychisel wrote:

You're fishing Spen. What's your point? And now you're arguing against your own fishing expedition.

Fishing? No, just raising something where an innocent individual can loose everything through no fault of their own and is not entitled to any redress from those responsible for that loss.


Not sure how you think I am arguing against my self - you'll have to explain that to me

schlepcycling

Could you not sue for malicious prosecution or wrongful arrest?

chrisjsmith

Welcome to democracy. This is one reason why I favour anarchy.

spen666

schlepcycling wrote:

Could you not sue for malicious prosecution or wrongful arrest?

Malicious Prosecution
Not unless you can prove prosecution was malicious. its not enough to prove it was wrong ( ie you were not guilty).

Wrongful Arrest
All police need to show is they had reasonable grounds to suspect you had committed an offence. Wrongful arrest would also end the moment you were remanded by the court

schlepcycling

spen666 wrote:

schlepcycling wrote:

Could you not sue for malicious prosecution or wrongful arrest?

Malicious Prosecution
Not unless you can prove prosecution was malicious. its not enough to prove it was wrong ( ie you were not guilty).

Wrongful Arrest
All police need to show is they had reasonable grounds to suspect you had committed an offence. Wrongful arrest would also end the moment you were remanded by the court

Your ability to prove the prosecution was malicious would to some extent depend on what happened at the trial. Did for instance the witnesses who picked this person out at the id parade subsequently say that they only did it becuase of some personal vendetta against the accused and that they were going to 'get him' for whatever reason, that would give weight to a malicious prosecution claim or at the very least maybe you could try suing them for defamation.

spen666

schlepcycling wrote:

spen666 wrote:

schlepcycling wrote:

Could you not sue for malicious prosecution or wrongful arrest?

Malicious Prosecution
Not unless you can prove prosecution was malicious. its not enough to prove it was wrong ( ie you were not guilty).

Wrongful Arrest
All police need to show is they had reasonable grounds to suspect you had committed an offence. Wrongful arrest would also end the moment you were remanded by the court

Your ability to prove the prosecution was malicious would to some extent depend on what happened at the trial. Did for instance the witnesses who picked this person out at the id parade subsequently say that they only did it becuase of some personal vendetta against the accused and that they were going to 'get him' for whatever reason, that would give weight to a malicious prosecution claim or at the very least maybe you could try suing them for defamation.

You are drifting off on a tangent here.

It is not possible in circumstances of op to get any redress at all.


Malicious Prosecution- this is irrelevant to the motive of the witness. Malicious prosecution is only against the prosecution- in tyour case the police only. I don't think you can be sued for defamation for what is said in giving evidence

NFMC

Justice is done by the 'hypothetical' person being found not guilty.

The fact is that people are not remanded in custody with very little evidence. There are plenty of checks and balances in place that means that people are not just randomly put on remand.

If the criminal process had to then compensate the person then there would be an even greater pull on taxpayer's money. Something I wouldn't be voting for in the near future.

spen666

NFMC wrote:

Justice is done by the 'hypothetical' person being found not guilty.

The fact is that people are not remanded in custody with very little evidence. There are plenty of checks and balances in place that means that people are not just randomly put on remand.

Ha ha hah ha hahahahahahahaha

You really are joking aren't you.

A remand into custody is to do with the nature of charge, your antecedents etrc rather than any look at the evidence

You are being so naive as to be untrue.

If the criminal process had to then compensate the person then there would be an even greater pull on taxpayer's money. Something I wouldn't be voting for in the near future.

So you'd be happy to spend the next 12 months locked up in prison for something you haven't done, lose your home, family, business/career etc and you'd thing because you were released at the end of it and told you hadn't done anything wrong that that is fair?

BTW - as the innocent person is locked up on the taxpayers behals ( ie by the justice system they fund) then surely its only fair that the innocent victim of such an incarceration should be compensated by them.




On a different tact- I presume you oppose innocent victims of road accidents being compensated by the MIB as the tax payer funds these. I presume you would never claim compensation where you are the innocent victim of something eg a road accident, your house being burgled etc

Mike Willcox

A hypothetical case is well .............hypothetical.

Has this hypothetical person had previous convictions for GBH? Is it a member of the royal family? Or is the local vicar or maybe even a blind person? All these things would be relevant in consideration of remand irrespective of eye witnesses.

NFMC

Ha ha hah ha hahahahahahahaha

You really are joking aren't you.

A remand into custody is to do with the nature of charge, your antecedents etrc rather than any look at the evidence

You are being so naive as to be untrue.

It's pretty obvious you've got an entrenched position so let me come back at the points you've raised rather than try and persuade you.

All people charged with murder are remanded into custody. No matter what. But, when I say it depends on the evidence; to get to that charge it has to have gone to a superior police officer, the CPS who have to be convinced that there's a 'reasonable liklihood of a succesful prosecution' and then to a magistrate's court.

The hypothetical person also gets a solicitor (free, or they can pay for their own) who will challenge that evidence if necessary.

It's not perfect and innocent people will get through that stage.

They are then placed on remand. Depending on the case, the CPS will continue to review the case and if circumstances change or new evidence comes to light then charges may be dropped.

Eventually it gets to court. Before the court hearing the Judge will look at the papers and may decide that the accused has no case to answer. Also, the barristers on both sides will look at the papers and the prosecution side may decide to not put forward a case as they know it's one they'll lose. Doesn't happen often, but it does happen.

Then there's a hearing. That's the ultimate last chance to review all the evidence. That's the system, and it's all there to potect the innocent.

On a different tact- I presume you oppose innocent victims of road accidents being compensated by the MIB as the tax payer funds these. I presume you would never claim compensation where you are the innocent victim of something eg a road accident, your house being burgled etc

Different analogy entirely. Most victims of road accidents are paid out by insurance companies. There is a central pot for uninsured drivers (similar to the criminal injuries board). Personally I'd make it far harder for people to drive without insurance but that's a different issue. I know of no central compensation pot for burgled houses.

schlepcycling

OK at the risk of another 'telling off' I would answer your OP as saying that justice was seen to be done i.e. the person was found not guilty when they weren't guilty, but no justice has not been done as that person has been deprived of their liberty (and a good deal else) for 12 months and seems to have little chance of getting any compensation to help put their life back together.

pneumatic

Do they have threads about bottom bracket design on legalradar.com?

Upon reflection, the notion of legalradar.com is so horribly scary that I'm not even going to google it, in case it exists. Imagine the entrenched debate, the vocabulary, the feigned mutual respect, the vicious splitting of meanings. And what do you put on your timesheet for participation in webchat so that a hapless client can be invoiced (ex VAT) for your time?

uurghh, where's the emoticon for a shudder?

[btw, this is a joke, or humorous aside, at least that is the intention, but it will only be realised as such in the mind of the beholder who is free not to accept it as such]

Brains

spen666 wrote:

Brains wrote:

What percentage of people held in remand for say more than 2 weeks are aquitted on the basis of being innocent (as opposed to being aquitted on a technicality) ?

Are we talking dozens or thousands of people per year ?

There is no such thing as being acquitted on a technicality- you are either guilty or not

The numbers are irrelevant- if it happens to YOU - it is no less of a loss if it also happened to say 1000 other people


I should make clear the scenario is different if you are convicted and then cleared on appeal- you do get compensation then- for the post conviction time

I think the numbers are relevant. If this only happens a few times a year we can look at the specifics of a case, however if this is a regular problem and hundreds or even thousands of people are banged up for months at a time and then released then we are talking about a Guintamo Bay type of situation,allbeit on a smaller scale and with some sort of justice at the end of the tunnel.

Therefore Spen, what sort of numbers of people are we talking about, in the UK, per year, who are deemed innocent when released after a period of more than 2 weeks ?

Two ?
Ten?
Hundreds ?
Thousands ?

spen666

Brains wrote:

spen666 wrote:

Brains wrote:

What percentage of people held in remand for say more than 2 weeks are aquitted on the basis of being innocent (as opposed to being aquitted on a technicality) ?

Are we talking dozens or thousands of people per year ?

There is no such thing as being acquitted on a technicality- you are either guilty or not

The numbers are irrelevant- if it happens to YOU - it is no less of a loss if it also happened to say 1000 other people


I should make clear the scenario is different if you are convicted and then cleared on appeal- you do get compensation then- for the post conviction time

I think the numbers are relevant. If this only happens a few times a year we can look at the specifics of a case, however if this is a regular problem and hundreds or even thousands of people are banged up for months at a time and then released then we are talking about a Guintamo Bay type of situation,allbeit on a smaller scale and with some sort of justice at the end of the tunnel.

Therefore Spen, what sort of numbers of people are we talking about, in the UK, per year, who are deemed innocent when released after a period of more than 2 weeks ?

Two ?
Ten?
Hundreds ?
Thousands ?

Numbers are irrelevant to the innocent person held on remand for a crime he did not commit.

will you volunteer to be locked up for the next year in prison for a crime you have not committed. It won't matter that you lose your job, your home, your family etc- as you will be the only person it has happened to.
similarily if you are knocked off your bike by a motorist- you won't think you need compensation as you are the only person that motorist has hit and injured.

spen666

Mike Willcox wrote:

A hypothetical case is well .............hypothetical.

Has this hypothetical person had previous convictions for GBH? Is it a member of the royal family? Or is the local vicar or maybe even a blind person? All these things would be relevant in consideration of remand irrespective of eye witnesses.

Hypothetical? No it happens all the time.

Story on the news tonight illustrates it well. Someone has just been charged with the murder of Rachel Nickell on Wimbledon common some 15 years ago.

This was the case for which Colin Stagg was arrested, charged and held on remand until trial when the case collapsed- mainly because he had not even met the deceased

spen666

NFMC wrote:

Ha ha hah ha hahahahahahahaha

You really are joking aren't you.

A remand into custody is to do with the nature of charge, your antecedents etrc rather than any look at the evidence

You are being so naive as to be untrue.

It's pretty obvious you've got an entrenched position so let me come back at the points you've raised rather than try and persuade you.

All people charged with murder are remanded into custody. No matter what. But, when I say it depends on the evidence; to get to that charge it has to have gone to a superior police officer, the CPS who have to be convinced that there's a 'reasonable liklihood of a succesful prosecution' and then to a magistrate's court.

The hypothetical person also gets a solicitor (free, or they can pay for their own) who will challenge that evidence if necessary.

yes- at the trial some 12 months later- hence the situation we have where you can be remanded for a year or more totally innocent of any crime. There is no challenge permissible to the evidence other than in the trial.

It's not perfect and innocent people will get through that stage.

They are then placed on remand. Depending on the case, the CPS will continue to review the case and if circumstances change or new evidence comes to light then charges may be dropped.

Eventually it gets to court. Before the court hearing the Judge will look at the papers and may decide that the accused has no case to answer. Also, the barristers on both sides will look at the papers and the prosecution side may decide to not put forward a case as they know it's one they'll lose. Doesn't happen often, but it does happen.

Then there's a hearing. That's the ultimate last chance to review all the evidence. That's the system, and it's all there to potect the innocent.

On a different tact- I presume you oppose innocent victims of road accidents being compensated by the MIB as the tax payer funds these. I presume you would never claim compensation where you are the innocent victim of something eg a road accident, your house being burgled etc

Different analogy entirely. Most victims of road accidents are paid out by insurance companies. There is a central pot for uninsured drivers (similar to the criminal injuries board). Personally I'd make it far harder for people to drive without insurance but that's a different issue. I know of no central compensation pot for burgled houses.

You ignore the fact that the MIB pay out to innocent people as does the CICA. Why should these innocent people be compensated for injuries/loss, but the person who is remanded when innocent and looses all they had should get nothing according to you.

It comes across that you do not accept that innocent people are charged

Anonymous

Yet another silly OP by a very silly person.
We know you are a legal expert spen,what we don't know is why you ask questions only you seem to know the answers to.
Furthermore how do you find the time?
You surely must be in great demand.

chrisjsmith

Some people get off on it. Sad buggers.

I work for a couple of people like that. I usually end up spending all day proving myself to them and not doing any real work. Which is fine because I hate doing real work

Anonymous

"Which is fine because I hate doing real work "



Would seem you are not alone there chris. Coming up for 13000 posts is our legal adviser now.
Could even round it off on this thread alone telling us how woefully wrong we are and how we have lost the argument by resorting to ad hominem. Or should that be loosed?

ademort

It sounds like a terrible injustice to be kept on remand and then eventually freed after 12 months in jail, and yes you probably would lose just about everything you had,there is no justice there at all.It must be very difficult to pick up your life again after such an ordeal. however, lets go a step further and say that you were convicted of a crime that you did not commit and served several years in jail, that would be much worse. A recent case springs to mind. The case of TV presenter Jill Dando, the courts ruled that the evidence that convicted Barry George of the crime was unsafe. In short he is probably going to be freed after spending a number of years in jail for a crime that now appears to have been commited by somebody else.

spen666

ademort wrote:

It sounds like a terrible injustice to be kept on remand and then eventually freed after 12 months in jail, and yes you probably would lose just about everything you had,there is no justice there at all.It must be very difficult to pick up your life again after such an ordeal. however, lets go a step further and say that you were convicted of a crime that you did not commit and served several years in jail, that would be much worse. A recent case springs to mind. The case of TV presenter Jill Dando, the courts ruled that the evidence that convicted Barry George of the crime was unsafe. In short he is probably going to be freed after spending a number of years in jail for a crime that now appears to have been commited by somebody else.

In that case, you do get compensation!

Barry George case- you are jumping the gun slightly. There is to be a retrial. Will he be convicted at a retrial?

I personally do not think he did it

ademort

Hi spen, i think that Barry George will be found not guilty in a retrial, the one piece of evidence that really convicted him in the first place will have a much lesser impact in the second trial. Also, having seen a documentary some time ago on this case it was plain for all to see that he could not have done it.

spen666

ademort wrote:

Hi spen, i think that Barry George will be found not guilty in a retrial, the one piece of evidence that really convicted him in the first place will have a much lesser impact in the second trial. Also, having seen a documentary some time ago on this case it was plain for all to see that he could not have done it.

I had a conversation about 2-3 weeks ago (just before the court of appeal ordered a re-trial) with one of the lawyers in the case and understand the evidence in the case without the firearms evidence is not so clear as to mean it is a formality he will be acquitted.

I have not seen the evidence, and cannot comment on it.

My personal view is that he did not commit this crime.

grayo59

I know of a case where a man was accused of assault then arrested, charged and went to magistrates court where he pled not guilty and the case was referred to crown court.

Before crown court the case was dropped three days before the due date because the CPS said that:-

1. It was not in the public interest.

2. The main witness was unreliable.

Accused had spent £4,600 on defence to that point and was awarded that same amount back.

This was in 2000.

spen666

grayo59 wrote:

I know of a case where a man was accused of assault then arrested, charged and went to magistrates court where he pled not guilty and the case was referred to crown court.

Before crown court the case was dropped three days before the due date because the CPS said that:-

1. It was not in the public interest.

2. The main witness was unreliable.

Accused had spent £4,600 on defence to that point and was awarded that same amount back.

This was in 2000.

what has this got to do with the topic?

Awards of legal costs nearly always follows the result.

If the defendant had been in custody all that time- he would still only have got his legal costs ie solicitors fees only

He would get nothing for the time spent in prison or the lose of his home, job, family etc

grayo59

Nothing Spen - I just thought it was interesting and that others might find it so too. Sorry.