Source(Original post by The Independent)
Victims of two of Britain’s most worrying miscarriages of justice of modern times are to take the Justice Secretary, Chris Grayling, to court over changes to the law stopping them from receiving compensation for the 24 years they wrongly spent behind bars.
Victor Nealon, who spent 17 years in prison for attempted rape before his conviction was quashed, has begun legal action after being left penniless, suffering from post-traumatic stress and unable to work as a result of his wrongful imprisonment. He has been joined by one of Britain’s youngest miscarriage of justice victims, Sam Hallam, who, aged 17, was convicted of murder after a trainee chef was stabbed during a fight in London.
Mr Hallam’s conviction was thrown out by the Court of Appeal in 2012 after he spent seven years in jail. Judges heard that crucial evidence supporting his alibi had been left undiscovered on his mobile phone for years.
The legal challenge is seen as a test case for a new stricter regime to compensate the victims of miscarriages introduced last year. Crucially, it changed eligibility for compensation which means it paid only when the new facts resulting in the quashing of a conviction shows “beyond reasonable doubt” they did not commit the offence.
I have to say I think this is quite disgraceful. These men spent many years behind bars for crimes they did not commit, and after finally being released are told that they will not be entitled to any compensation at all. These men have to rebuild their lives now, in very challenging circumstances. I think the Government, specifically Chris Grayling, should be ashamed of themselves for resolving one miscarriage of justice whilst making another.
Wrongly imprisoned men to open lawsuit after being told they will get no compensation watch
- Political Ambassador
- Thread Starter
- 18-01-2015 12:46
- 18-01-2015 13:06
Neither or them are going to be able to work a decent job ever again, so the state should at least give them something for ruining their lives.
- Political Ambassador
- 18-01-2015 13:24
resulting in the quashing of a conviction shows “beyond reasonable doubt” they did not commit the offence.
Surely if a conviction has been quashed it's pretty obvious they did not commit the offence? Provided it was not on the basis of some sort of technicality.
- 18-01-2015 13:32
The evidence used to convict Nealon was so flimsy.
Surely the fact that he was basically offered early release but chose to spend seven extra years in jail because he wanted to assert his innocence ought to be evidence enough that he definitely didn't do it?
- 18-01-2015 13:38
Just had a quick glance at the Sam Hallam case as well. A man convicted based on a withdrawn witness statement and a woman who heard from someone else that he did it.
No forensics, no CCTV, no reliable witness statements. Horrifying that a jury can produce a guilty verdict in such a case.
- 18-01-2015 13:43
- 18-01-2015 21:28
I hate reading these cases, its absolutely sad.
And even when they do get compensation, I look at the amount compared to the years of hell they suffered in prison, no amount of money can reflect their suffering and loss of life.
Always wondering what could've been, the breaking down of relations, no chance to find your significant other, grow old, have children as well as progressing in life. What's even more crazy, is the fact they are unwilling to give compensation as they essentially still think they could be the criminal.
Already ruined a man's life, I wouldn't be surprised if he chooses to live a life of benefits and fall into depression.