Andrew Malkinson

[denislawsbackheel]

Surely if that is how it worked previously (looks like it’s been abolished as above) then the damages assessment would necessarily include those costs? As in he would be awarded compensation that included an amount for the living costs he would be incurring. The whole point on damages is it is supposed to “make you whole” financially at least (though I don’t think any monetary amount will make up for 17 years of lost freedom). It’s still a ridiculous rule, if your conviction has been quashed then they should be paying you for your time not the other way round.

Either way, this whole case is fucking awful but depressingly unsurprising given how unfit for purpose our police force has proven to be. The people that made the decision to withhold evidence should be jailed on some kind of false imprisonment charge (idk I’m not a barrister, but if your actions have caused others to lose their freedom I don’t see why you shouldn’t lose yours). I won’t hold my breath…

In the past compensation was limited to a maximum Of £1 million for a sentence of 10 years or over.
The board and lodge deduction could be up to 25% of that award.
But worst of all, you don’t get it automatically.
You have to prove your innocence to qualify.
Having your sentence quashed is not enough.
How the fuck do you do that?

 

[SkyBlueFlux]

In the past compensation was limited to a maximum Of £1 million for a sentence of 10 years or over.
The board and lodge deduction could be up to 25% of that award.
But worst of all, you don’t get it automatically.
You have to prove your innocence to qualify.
Having your sentence quashed is not enough.
How the fuck do you do that?

Wow, thanks, didn’t know any of that. Where do you even start with that shit heap of a system? Ridiculous.

 

[hilts]

The longer you live the more you realise that you pay people with your taxes that are lazy incompetent and lack any moral compass.

 

[Stephen230]

There was talk about 20 years ago of creating a path for life sentence prisoners who maintain their innocence to be released. But it all seemed to go a bit quiet and as far as I know nothing has changed since.

It isn’t technically impossible for the parole board to recommend release to such a person. But in reality, expressing remorse is a minimal starting point to release and you can’t express remorse without admitting guilt.

Law of averages dictates there are many innocent people sat rotting away in jail on life sentences. Unfortunately it’s an inevitable consequence of a workable justice system.

But it’s an abject failure of the system that the most principled of those people, who refuse to admit to a crime that they haven’t committed, are destined to be punished far more than if they’d actually committed the crime, or falsely admitted to doing so.