Do defendants found innocent get support / compensation?

[troubleanstrife]

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?

The vast majority of people appearing in court are bailed.
Those that aren't are generally accused of very serious crimes or in the case of less serious ones they already have a long history of analogous offending.

Prison space is limited so it makes no sense to remand everyone but as a PP said, it's for the protection of the public, the protection of the accused themselves (in some notorious cases it's probably the only thing that's spared them from a lynch mob) or because the accused is a flight risk.

Defendants are not found 'innocent'. They are found 'not guilty', which is not quite the same thing.

So there are two sorts of people who receive a 'not guilty' verdict. The genuinely innocent, and those who are guilty, but there wasn't sufficient evidence to prove it beyond reasonable doubt. It is not always possible to tell one from the other.

If compensation were to be offered, how would they decide who should receive it?

I think everyone found not guilty should receive it?

I don’t mean compensation in the sense of suing for loads of money, I just mean enough that they are not left destitute!

I think that if you can show that you have lost your livelihood or your home as a result of being on remand for a crime you did not commit, you should have support to rectify the situation. For example, you could be paid the equivalent of minimum wage for the time you were in prison, and/or provided with money for accommodation for a certain amount of time once you are released. I think it would also be reasonable to be offered counselling.

I've listened to the Andy Malkinson story on a Times podcast and the evidence against him was shockingly poor with no forensics. But this was 20 years ago. I imagine the bar for the CPS to prosecute now is far higher.

The statistics on what subsequently happens to remand prisoners are interesting, OP, if you want to do a search, in terms of how many are acquitted and also how many who are convicted don't receive a jail sentence. I think it's fair a to say that combined they constitute a sizeable minority.

Not guilty does not mean innocent.

The charging standards for crimes are extremely high and truly innocent people are rare.

I've recently seen a similar story. Man was falsely accused of something. Lost his job, lost his house, spent all his savings of around £30k. Was proven to be innocent. Lives in a crappy flat on benefits now. No chance of any recompense.

Not guilty does not mean 'a crime you did not commit'. It means that you could not be found guilty in a court of law, with the consequences of having a criminal record and possibly loss of liberty. Many, many people who commit crimes are not convicted of them.

A lot of people here seem to feel that it is better to punish people ‘just in case’ they were guilty after all.

But what if it was you? Your parent or your child? We’re talking innocent but unlucky here. Why shouldn’t it be you?

Thanks, it is something I am interested in reading more about, but I am not in the legal world - any advice where to start looking for more info on this?

Someone I know was convicted of a white-collar crime and sent to jail (I’m being deliberately vague here). After a year his conviction was overturned on appeal, with the judge saying he should never have been convicted in the first place. Career effectively over at the time of the accusation. No compensation. Fortunately he is in a very privileged financial position after many years of high pay but nothing makes up for losing a year of your life and of your young children’s lives, the years of stress waiting for the trial, the fear that he and his wife had that he might be locked up for many, many years - and he was completely innocent. He pretty much got a “sorry about that, now off you go.”

Remand and sentenced women are held together. You have different privileges though. For example

Visits: remand is unlimited. Sentenced is 2/month
Canteen: remand is unlimited. Sentenced is about £25 iirc.
Jobs: Many jobs require you to be in for over 12 weeks. As pps have said, it’s unusual to be on remand for extended periods. Limit is 6 months without it having to be scrutinised.
Education: Sentenced prisoners have access to OU. Remand will have level 1/2/3 Maths, English and computing.

YMMV.

Magistrates are also directed to take the case it its highest. For example, let’s say malicious communications where the “victim” claims they were threatened with a knife. It’s the knife part that will see someone remanded, even if it forms 0.01% of the evidence and is only hearsay (so not generally admissible as evidence in court).

Heartbreaking. And again, this is why everyone should have cared as legal aid got slashed.

Most people nodded along at the daily mail stories of "fat cat" barristers (quoting, usually, KC salaries for big corporate cases).

The reality, no one remotely bright that I was at law school with went into criminal law, even though all of us found it fascinating. So these days, increasingly, you run the risk you might have someone pretty rubbish as your lawyer, if you can even access legal aid. And if you can't access legal aid you might have to sell your house to pay to defend yourself

Could you please provide the evidence that "truly innocent" acquittals are rare? Thought not.

I've listened to the Andy Malkinson story on a Times podcast and the evidence against him was shockingly poor with no forensics. But this was 20 years ago. I imagine the bar for the CPS to prosecute now is far higher.

Yes, of course the evidence was shockingly poor and that sort of thing (including the fact that there was evidence that could entirely clear him three years after his false conviction) could never happen these days. People aren't imprisoned for things they didn't do. Ever.
https://news.sky.com/story/what-is-the-post-office-scandal-why-were-postmasters-prosecuted-and-what-is-horizon-12542573#:~:text=The%20sub%2Dpostmasters%20and%20mistresses,have%20had%20their%20convictions%20quashed.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1799534/wrongful-convictions-uk-charts-andrew-malkinson-spt

https://www.thejusticegap.com/a-history-of-innocence-projects-in-the-uk-a-story-of-continuous-struggle/

https://www.law.ac.uk/about/press-releases/wrongful-convictions/

There are people in jail right now, recently convicted, who say they are innocent. And many of them won't be. But some will be. Should it take 20 years to free them, and then for them to get no compensation, support or help to rebuild their lives?

It is not about how many. It is about the fact that if there is even ONE case, then they should be entitled to compensation, hekp and support to rebuild their lives.

I agree op - people can and are often wrongfully accused. In Scotland it used to be limited to a year and a day you could be kept on remand without trial but with Covid there were extensions

I would look up the secret barrister on twitter and read their books (there are 2 or 3 now). Be warned though, once your eyes are opened to the absolutely parlous state of our criminal justice system in the UK there's no going back, it's highly, highly alarming how bad things are. Most people really don't realise this, focusing on the more media friendly stuff about how awful the NHS is (sick people more worthy of attention/sympathy than victims of crime for some reason). As you can see on this thread with the comfortable assumption that miscarriages of justice can't happen, nearly everyone charged with a crime definitely did it etc etc. For instance not only (as you've realised) can people charged with serious crimes be held on remand (which is not lovely open cat A prison, it's basically the same as 'normal' prison, lock up etc) for years or even out on bail (which is not nothing in itself) waiting for a trial date, they can easily lose their job, their family, their home, everything. There's very little possibility of getting compensation for this even if it does turn out to be a total cock-up. Worse still, due to the abolition of legal aid for most people, they can actually be landed with an enormous bill for their solicitor and barrister fees, as these are not paid for you even if found not guilty (or even if CPS drop the case for lack of evidence/cock up).

Which is appalling especially given the short comings (downright lies) of the police forces involved.

No they don’t. Someone I know was forced into early retirement from their public sector job, almost lost their home and ended up skint working a basic minimum wage job after being remanded in custody whilst their trial came to court (found not guilty).
They lost such a lot whilst the person who made allegations about them in the first place walked away with no repercussion.

Agreed @maxelly .... And let's not even get started on the absolute shambles of the family courts....

As a commercial law solicitor, I had learnt in law school about the theory of how courts worked, so when i experienced the family courts after fleeing a DV relationship I was utterly shocked by the reality.

Again, in part due to a shortage of funding, but also due to a lack of scrutiny.

Prosecutions are only brought when the CPS consider there is a reasonable chance of a conviction. Whilst there have been cases where an innocent person was sent to jail and subsequently had their sentence overturned, I'd bet that many more people did commit the crimes they were accused of, and got off either because the CPS didn't fancy their chances of a conviction, or because the evidence was not conclusive enough for a guilty verdict.

Absolutely. Someone found “not guilty” is not “found innocent”, there is no such verdict as “innocent”.

Edith Thompson

An innocent young woman wrongfully executed because she was condemned by the mob of public opinion.

She was so distressed by what was being done to her that she was forcibly sedated and then tied up and carried when she was taken to be murdered by the state.

Utterly horrific and inhumane suffering inflicted on her and her family.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-63561245

Her parents kissed her goodbye but were never told where she was buried, let alone allowed to visit her grave.

Her death sentence wasn't commuted because of the pressure from the public baying for her blood (not dissimilar to what we have seen on this website in the last 24 hours really.)

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/edith-thompson-death-penalty-capital-punishment-hanging-miscarriage-justice-buried-mother-murder-bywaters-younger-lover-husband-grave-a8647636.html

Depressingly little has changed since then, except that the state no longer murders people then dumps them in unmarked graves.

It is amazing that the Andy Malkinson miscarriage of justice can be so high profile currently and yet people are still making grandiose statements about the infallibility of our criminal justice system.

The Post Office wrongful prosecution scandal ruined hundreds of lives. That's still not resolved.

I don't know why people feel so confident that being innocent will protect them from having their life destroyed. Anybody who thinks that a jury trial will protect them cannot be familiar with the history of miscarriages if justice at the hands of juries.

There is a long list of innocent lives ruined. And there is no recompense because the mob would protest. The only "mercy" now is that people won't have been murdered by the state before their innocence is uncovered.

Legally it amounts to being found innocent. In the eyes of the law you are innocent unless and until a guilty verdict is delivered.

Sally Clark said when she was released
”Today is not a victory. We are not victorious. There are no winners here. We have all lost out."
She later died due to illnesses believed to have been caused by her conviction and experiences.