Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Chat

Join the discussion and chat with other Mumsnetters about everyday life, relationships and parenting.

Original poster

Do defendants found innocent get support / compensation?

89 replies

troubleanstrife · 19/08/2023 12:49

It’s the Letby case that has set me thinking, but this is just a general question.

I was surprised to realise that she has been in prison for 5 years already while waiting for the trial and verdict. Obviously in her case it doesn’t matter because she is guilty and will be likely serving a life sentence anyway.

But if somebody were found to be innocent, they could have lost their job and their home in that time, and no doubt 5 years on prison takes its toll on mental and physical health too.

Would they be entitled to claim anything back, or get help to get their lives back on track?

OP posts:
Thread gallery
5
Supercat100 · 19/08/2023 12:50

I don't believe so.

ChesCazza · 19/08/2023 12:55

There are laws about how long someone can be remanded into custody for.

Lucy Letbys case is exceptional circumstances and will have been reviewed by a Judge several times before her trial. She will have been remanded into custody for her own safety more than through any risk to the public. It is exptionally rare for someone to be on remand for 5 years.

What will happen though is that time already spent in prison will be counted as time spent on her sentence. I doubt any judge in their right mind would let her out though.

WeetabixTowels · 19/08/2023 12:59

No one is found innocent. Remaining in custody whilst awaiting trial (BTW it’s been less than 3 years for Letby) is for the protection of the public. Not everyone is remanded in custody it’s judged on a case by case basis

jotunn · 19/08/2023 13:01

There is a limited compensation scheme - primarily for people who were found guilty and subsequently acquitted such as the Guildford 4.

Chris Grayling limited this and deducted 'living expenses' so compensation is reduced to account for the costs of housing those people during their time in prison.

Original poster
troubleanstrife · 19/08/2023 13:03

Okay. So is being remanded in custody just like being a convicted criminal, 20h a day in a cell etc? Or is it a more open type of prison, with people only going to Category A or having the harsh conditions imposed after sentencing?

Just seems wrong that a person can be held in prison for years without being found guilty of anything.

OP posts:
WeetabixTowels · 19/08/2023 13:05

troubleanstrife · 19/08/2023 13:03

Okay. So is being remanded in custody just like being a convicted criminal, 20h a day in a cell etc? Or is it a more open type of prison, with people only going to Category A or having the harsh conditions imposed after sentencing?

Just seems wrong that a person can be held in prison for years without being found guilty of anything.

Would you rather a highly likely mass murderer was free to roam and harm because of the sake of ‘it’s not fair’? What about aerial rapsists awaiting trial?

AutumnCrow · 19/08/2023 13:05

Chris Grayling limited this and deducted 'living expenses' so compensation is reduced to account for the costs of housing those people during their time in prison.

I believe that Suella Braverman recently binned off the 'living expenses' deductions after the furore around Andy Malkinson's wrongful conviction.

FerryPink · 19/08/2023 13:06

Compensation is rarely awarded and inadequate.

FerryPink · 19/08/2023 13:07

troubleanstrife · 19/08/2023 13:03

Okay. So is being remanded in custody just like being a convicted criminal, 20h a day in a cell etc? Or is it a more open type of prison, with people only going to Category A or having the harsh conditions imposed after sentencing?

Just seems wrong that a person can be held in prison for years without being found guilty of anything.

That's why the decision is a judicial one , it's not taken lightly and there are statutory protections.

But yes ,it's not ideal but it's balancing act at the end of the day between the rights of the individual and the safety of the public/the need for justice

Original poster
troubleanstrife · 19/08/2023 13:10

WeetabixTowels · 19/08/2023 13:05

Would you rather a highly likely mass murderer was free to roam and harm because of the sake of ‘it’s not fair’? What about aerial rapsists awaiting trial?

Show quote history

No obviously not.

But imagine you were wrongly accused of something. While awaiting trial you lost your job, defaulted on your bills, were visited by the bailiffs and lost your home.

You are later found not guilty but your life is in a mess and will likely never be the same again.

Doesn’t seem fair?

OP posts:
Insommmmnia · 19/08/2023 13:10

troubleanstrife · 19/08/2023 13:03

Okay. So is being remanded in custody just like being a convicted criminal, 20h a day in a cell etc? Or is it a more open type of prison, with people only going to Category A or having the harsh conditions imposed after sentencing?

Just seems wrong that a person can be held in prison for years without being found guilty of anything.

I agree it seems wrong, however its only used in limited circumstances where they believe there is a risk to the public, or the person may run away or they may try to intimidate the witness etc

Original poster
troubleanstrife · 19/08/2023 13:11

FerryPink · 19/08/2023 13:07

That's why the decision is a judicial one , it's not taken lightly and there are statutory protections.

But yes ,it's not ideal but it's balancing act at the end of the day between the rights of the individual and the safety of the public/the need for justice

Show quote history

I see what you mean. Must be a difficult call to make sometimes.

OP posts:
Bookish88 · 19/08/2023 13:12

There's a difference between being found "not guilty" and being "innocent", FWIW.

FerryPink · 19/08/2023 13:13

Bookish88 · 19/08/2023 13:12

There's a difference between being found "not guilty" and being "innocent", FWIW.

That's a very good point too

Hereinthismoment · 19/08/2023 13:14

The Michael Shirley case is a bit of a terrifying one - sent to prison aged 18 for a murder he didn’t commit, released in his early 30s. The compensation isn’t much when you consider the repercussions Sad

Banditqueen12 · 19/08/2023 13:14

WeetabixTowels · 19/08/2023 13:05

Would you rather a highly likely mass murderer was free to roam and harm because of the sake of ‘it’s not fair’? What about aerial rapsists awaiting trial?

Show quote history

That wasn't the question. The question was whether people who have been held in custody are compensated or helped when found not guilty.

OP, the answer is no they are not. There is only some limited compensation for people is they can show that there has been a malicious presecution - in other words that they have been unfairly targetted for something which they clearly could not possibly have done. That is such a high standard that I doubt anyone could prove it even if true.

And no, remanded prisoners live in the same conditions as convicted prisoners. In some cases slightly worse than those they might be held in if they were convicted, as they would often be held in higher category prisons that those they might serve out a sentence in.

And yes - it isn't fair, and it causes untold damage to people's lives. Society tends to operate "no smoke without fire" so people are often assumed to have "got off" rather than been found not guilty; there is no formal service that helps them re-adjust to life outside prison or to get their lives back on track (which you actually do get if convicted!), and there is no compensation for loss or damage. There should be.

Hereinthismoment · 19/08/2023 13:15

Bookish88 · 19/08/2023 13:12

There's a difference between being found "not guilty" and being "innocent", FWIW.

There is but in the eyes of the law I don’t think there is, or should be.

FerryPink · 19/08/2023 13:16

You'd probably find the Secret Barrister book an interesting read Op, they explore some of these points.

Essentially though I agree, it's sobering to think that the state has the power to completely destroy the life of someone innocent, and it's why we should all care about how the government has decimated the criminal legal aid system. And its why we should all care that very few bright law graduates choose to do criminal law these days, because the pay is so poor.

Original poster
troubleanstrife · 19/08/2023 13:18

Banditqueen12 · 19/08/2023 13:14

That wasn't the question. The question was whether people who have been held in custody are compensated or helped when found not guilty.

OP, the answer is no they are not. There is only some limited compensation for people is they can show that there has been a malicious presecution - in other words that they have been unfairly targetted for something which they clearly could not possibly have done. That is such a high standard that I doubt anyone could prove it even if true.

And no, remanded prisoners live in the same conditions as convicted prisoners. In some cases slightly worse than those they might be held in if they were convicted, as they would often be held in higher category prisons that those they might serve out a sentence in.

And yes - it isn't fair, and it causes untold damage to people's lives. Society tends to operate "no smoke without fire" so people are often assumed to have "got off" rather than been found not guilty; there is no formal service that helps them re-adjust to life outside prison or to get their lives back on track (which you actually do get if convicted!), and there is no compensation for loss or damage. There should be.

Show quote history

Thanks for replying so fully. That’s really eye opening and in my opinion pretty troubling.
I guess all we can hope for is that the standards for charging somebody are high enough and that very few miscarriages of justice are made.

OP posts:
Banditqueen12 · 19/08/2023 13:18

Bookish88 · 19/08/2023 13:12

There's a difference between being found "not guilty" and being "innocent", FWIW.

I rest my case on "no smoke without fire" and the damage that is done to people who are held for crimes which they are found not guilty of. Simply the fact of the allegation and the custody is sufficient to ensure someone's life is blighted, and there is no recognition of that.

Original poster
troubleanstrife · 19/08/2023 13:19

FerryPink · 19/08/2023 13:16

You'd probably find the Secret Barrister book an interesting read Op, they explore some of these points.

Essentially though I agree, it's sobering to think that the state has the power to completely destroy the life of someone innocent, and it's why we should all care about how the government has decimated the criminal legal aid system. And its why we should all care that very few bright law graduates choose to do criminal law these days, because the pay is so poor.

Thanks, I’ll look that up!

OP posts:
ChinHairDontCare · 19/08/2023 13:20

There is a very high bar for criminal trial. A file of evidence that looks like it will secure a successful conviction has to be in place. And then the crime has to be so serious that you cannot be free on bail awaiting trial. Then if the trial is unsuccessful you are found not guilty, I.e. the prosecution did not meet the very high bar of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, with all the protections in place for the defendant during the trial process, e.g. you would not believe the evidence that is excluded from trials because it is considered prejudicial, i.e. likely to make the defendant look guilty! Or excluded on a technicality. There is rightly a very high bar for conviction of a crime, but that means most people found not guilty of a very serious crime likely did it, but could not meet the bar for conviction, rather than people being falsely accused and imprisoned while awaiting trial.

LakeTiticaca · 19/08/2023 13:21

Criminals remanded in custody have to be tried within 6 months, I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) murderers, violent crims and those considered a flight risk would be remanded in custody, others bailed.
The Letby case was obviously very complex and took a long time to unravel everything, my guess is she was remanded in custody for her own safety more than public safety.
I'm sure a " welcome mat" will be rolled out when she returns to jail as a convicted baby killer

Blondebutnotlegally · 19/08/2023 13:22

ChinHairDontCare · 19/08/2023 13:20

There is a very high bar for criminal trial. A file of evidence that looks like it will secure a successful conviction has to be in place. And then the crime has to be so serious that you cannot be free on bail awaiting trial. Then if the trial is unsuccessful you are found not guilty, I.e. the prosecution did not meet the very high bar of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, with all the protections in place for the defendant during the trial process, e.g. you would not believe the evidence that is excluded from trials because it is considered prejudicial, i.e. likely to make the defendant look guilty! Or excluded on a technicality. There is rightly a very high bar for conviction of a crime, but that means most people found not guilty of a very serious crime likely did it, but could not meet the bar for conviction, rather than people being falsely accused and imprisoned while awaiting trial.

I was going to say this. You won't get a case in court based on one "false accusation". Not only does there have to be plenty of evidence, but the bar is set very high. Even a confession isn't enough. CPS will throw it out the window until you find more.

Banditqueen12 · 19/08/2023 13:31

There is rightly a very high bar for conviction of a crime, but that means most people found not guilty of a very serious crime likely did it, but could not meet the bar for conviction, rather than people being falsely accused and imprisoned while awaiting trial.

That is exactly the same argument that is used to justify faulty convictions. It is your opinion that people "got away with it" rather than being falsely accused. So there will be absolutely no innocent people who have both been accused and convicted, because the legal system and the police are perfect. It may be rare that people convicted of crimes are in fact innocent. But the very fact that it happens, and we know it happens, means that there is a very good chance that some people will be remanded for crimes that they did not commit, and the reason that the vidence to convict could not be found is because they didn't do it!

Ask Andy Malkinson about his opinion on the subject.