The lack of mention of compensation in the article suggests he's likely
not getting any. Presumably the prison service aren't going to let that
stop them charging him c. £500k board and lodging (14,113 nights @ £30 night sounds fair).
On 2025-05-13, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
The lack of mention of compensation in the article suggests he's likely
not getting any. Presumably the prison service aren't going to let that
stop them charging him c. £500k board and lodging (14,113 nights @ £30
night sounds fair).
I think the more likely probability is that they decided that delaying
his release until they work out how much compensation he should get
would not be in his interests, so the compensation is a separate
process. Although yeah they'll probably deduct "room and board" for
all the luxury accommodation he's enjoyed for the last 38 years.
On Tue, 13 May 2025 15:19:27 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-05-13, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
The lack of mention of compensation in the article suggests he's likely
not getting any. Presumably the prison service aren't going to let that
stop them charging him c. £500k board and lodging (14,113 nights @ £30 >>> night sounds fair).
I think the more likely probability is that they decided that delaying
his release until they work out how much compensation he should get
would not be in his interests, so the compensation is a separate
process. Although yeah they'll probably deduct "room and board" for
all the luxury accommodation he's enjoyed for the last 38 years.
I thought they'd stopped, or were stopping, deducting board and
lodging costs from compensation.
On 2025-05-13, Peter Johnson <peter@parksidewood.nospam> wrote:
On Tue, 13 May 2025 15:19:27 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-05-13, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
The lack of mention of compensation in the article suggests he's likely >>>> not getting any. Presumably the prison service aren't going to let that >>>> stop them charging him c. £500k board and lodging (14,113 nights @ £30 >>>> night sounds fair).
I think the more likely probability is that they decided that delaying
his release until they work out how much compensation he should get
would not be in his interests, so the compensation is a separate
process. Although yeah they'll probably deduct "room and board" for
all the luxury accommodation he's enjoyed for the last 38 years.
I thought they'd stopped, or were stopping, deducting board and
lodging costs from compensation.
Ah, you're right, they stopped in 2023:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/wrongly-convicted-no-longer-face-being-charged-for-saved-living-expenses
The maximum amount available is £1,000,000 for over 10 years'
imprisonment, so that's how much he'll get, presumably.
It seems a bit weird the maximum isn't £1m *per* 10 years...
On 2025-05-13, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
The lack of mention of compensation in the article suggests he's likely
not getting any. Presumably the prison service aren't going to let that
stop them charging him c. £500k board and lodging (14,113 nights @ £30
night sounds fair).
I think the more likely probability is that they decided that delaying
his release until they work out how much compensation he should get
would not be in his interests, so the compensation is a separate
process. Although yeah they'll probably deduct "room and board" for all
the luxury accommodation he's enjoyed for the last 38 years.
On 13 May 2025 at 16:58:38 BST, "Jon Ribbens"
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
wrote:
On 2025-05-13, Peter Johnson <peter@parksidewood.nospam> wrote:
On Tue, 13 May 2025 15:19:27 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-05-13, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
The lack of mention of compensation in the article suggests he's
likely not getting any. Presumably the prison service aren't going
to let that stop them charging him c. £500k board and lodging
(14,113 nights @ £30 night sounds fair).
I think the more likely probability is that they decided that
delaying his release until they work out how much compensation he
should get would not be in his interests, so the compensation is a
separate process. Although yeah they'll probably deduct "room and
board" for all the luxury accommodation he's enjoyed for the last 38
years.
I thought they'd stopped, or were stopping, deducting board and
lodging costs from compensation.
Ah, you're right, they stopped in 2023:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/wrongly-convicted-no-longer-face- being-charged-for-saved-living-expenses
The maximum amount available is £1,000,000 for over 10 years'
imprisonment, so that's how much he'll get, presumably.
It seems a bit weird the maximum isn't £1m *per* 10 years...
A logarithmic scale would be fairer.
On Tue, 13 May 2025 16:04:21 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 13 May 2025 at 16:58:38 BST, "Jon Ribbens"being-charged-for-saved-living-expenses
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
wrote:
On 2025-05-13, Peter Johnson <peter@parksidewood.nospam> wrote:
On Tue, 13 May 2025 15:19:27 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-05-13, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
The lack of mention of compensation in the article suggests he's
likely not getting any. Presumably the prison service aren't going >>>>>> to let that stop them charging him c. £500k board and lodging
(14,113 nights @ £30 night sounds fair).
I think the more likely probability is that they decided that
delaying his release until they work out how much compensation he
should get would not be in his interests, so the compensation is a
separate process. Although yeah they'll probably deduct "room and
board" for all the luxury accommodation he's enjoyed for the last 38 >>>>> years.
I thought they'd stopped, or were stopping, deducting board and
lodging costs from compensation.
Ah, you're right, they stopped in 2023:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/wrongly-convicted-no-longer-face-
The maximum amount available is £1,000,000 for over 10 years'
imprisonment, so that's how much he'll get, presumably.
It seems a bit weird the maximum isn't £1m *per* 10 years...
A logarithmic scale would be fairer.
Or, more appropriately, no amount.
On 13 May 2025 at 17:19:43 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 13 May 2025 16:04:21 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 13 May 2025 at 16:58:38 BST, "Jon Ribbens"being-charged-for-saved-living-expenses
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
wrote:
On 2025-05-13, Peter Johnson <peter@parksidewood.nospam> wrote:
On Tue, 13 May 2025 15:19:27 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-05-13, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
The lack of mention of compensation in the article suggests he's >>>>>>> likely not getting any. Presumably the prison service aren't going >>>>>>> to let that stop them charging him c. £500k board and lodging
(14,113 nights @ £30 night sounds fair).
I think the more likely probability is that they decided that
delaying his release until they work out how much compensation he
should get would not be in his interests, so the compensation is a >>>>>> separate process. Although yeah they'll probably deduct "room and
board" for all the luxury accommodation he's enjoyed for the last
38 years.
I thought they'd stopped, or were stopping, deducting board and
lodging costs from compensation.
Ah, you're right, they stopped in 2023:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/wrongly-convicted-no-longer-face-
The maximum amount available is £1,000,000 for over 10 years'
imprisonment, so that's how much he'll get, presumably.
It seems a bit weird the maximum isn't £1m *per* 10 years...
A logarithmic scale would be fairer.
Or, more appropriately, no amount.
10^2.8 million for 38 years of someone's life doesn't seem excessive.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8rej5jv626o
I note again, the lack of reporting of compensation ...
On Tue, 13 May 2025 15:19:27 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-05-13, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
The lack of mention of compensation in the article suggests he's likely
not getting any. Presumably the prison service aren't going to let that
stop them charging him c. £500k board and lodging (14,113 nights @ £30 >>> night sounds fair).
I think the more likely probability is that they decided that delaying
his release until they work out how much compensation he should get
would not be in his interests, so the compensation is a separate
process. Although yeah they'll probably deduct "room and board" for all
the luxury accommodation he's enjoyed for the last 38 years.
If they play their cards right, he'll die before they get round to it. 38 years in jail suggests they weren't in much of a hurry the first time,
On 2025-05-13, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8rej5jv626o
I note again, the lack of reporting of compensation ...
The thing I find it interesting for its, as far as I can find,
total lack of reporting is: why was he still in prison after
38 years, given he was sentenced to a minimum term of 16 years?
If it was because prisoners who maintain their innocence cannot
be paroled, then surely this policy needs reviewing,
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message news:slrn10271lb.3nd.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-05-13, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8rej5jv626o
I note again, the lack of reporting of compensation ...
The thing I find it interesting for its, as far as I can find,
total lack of reporting is: why was he still in prison after
38 years, given he was sentenced to a minimum term of 16 years?
If it was because prisoners who maintain their innocence cannot
be paroled, then surely this policy needs reviewing,
The Parole Information Booklet states the following -
quote:
You do not have to admit your guilt prior to making an application
for parole, nor is denial of guilt an automatic bar to release
on parole licence.
{Which is essentially meaningless, given that }
It is not the role of the Parole Board to decide on issues of guilt
or innocence, and
* your case will be considered on the basis that you were rightfully convicted.*
The Board will consider the likelihood of you reoffending
*by taking into account the nature of your offence*
{Which you're claiming that you never committed in the first place]
On 13/05/2025 21:13, billy bookcase wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrn10271lb.3nd.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-05-13, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8rej5jv626o
I note again, the lack of reporting of compensation ...
The thing I find it interesting for its, as far as I can find,
total lack of reporting is: why was he still in prison after
38 years, given he was sentenced to a minimum term of 16 years?
If it was because prisoners who maintain their innocence cannot
be paroled, then surely this policy needs reviewing,
The Parole Information Booklet states the following -
quote:
You do not have to admit your guilt prior to making an application
for parole, nor is denial of guilt an automatic bar to release
on parole licence.
{Which is essentially meaningless, given that }
It is not the role of the Parole Board to decide on issues of guilt
or innocence, and
* your case will be considered on the basis that you were rightfully
convicted.*
 The Board will consider the likelihood of you reoffending
*by taking into account the nature of your offence*
{Which you're claiming that you never committed in the first place]
If only protesting your innocence were a firm indication of actual
innocence, life would be so much easier all round. We wouldn't need
trials for a start.
Sadly, however ...
In any system of justice there will be some miscarriages. But the
problem is no-one knows which they are. All we can do is try to
minimise them, which I think we do through all the safeguards that are currently in place as regards CPS appraisal, proof beyond reasonable
doubt, juries usually having to be unanimous etc, and by providing a
system of review when new compelling evidence comes to light.
It is very rare that you can say someone was not rightfully convicted on
the evidence presented in court.
did not commit the crime, it's right they should be compensated, but
again it's not easy to say they didn't actually do it. Very often there
is remaining doubt such that the conviction is 'unsafe' but there is no
proof of innocence. What we should do in such circumstances Is a matter
for society. It's above my pay grade.
In any system of justice there will be some miscarriages.
I think Peter Sullivan can qualify for compensation
On Wed, 14 May 2025 08:40:17 +0100, The Todal wrote:
I think Peter Sullivan can qualify for compensation
I am thinking that the lack of reporting on that suggests otherwise. AIUI
the Supreme Court ruling on this effectively separated wrongful
convictions from miscarriages of justice. With the ruling that you don't
get no compensation for a wrongful conviction unless it is also a
miscarriage of justice.
I am ready to be corrected by the legal profession.
On Wed, 14 May 2025 08:40:17 +0100, The Todal wrote:
I think Peter Sullivan can qualify for compensation
I am thinking that the lack of reporting on that suggests otherwise.
On 13/05/2025 21:13, billy bookcase wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrn10271lb.3nd.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-05-13, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8rej5jv626o
I note again, the lack of reporting of compensation ...
The thing I find it interesting for its, as far as I can find,
total lack of reporting is: why was he still in prison after
38 years, given he was sentenced to a minimum term of 16 years?
If it was because prisoners who maintain their innocence cannot
be paroled, then surely this policy needs reviewing,
The Parole Information Booklet states the following -
quote:
You do not have to admit your guilt prior to making an application
for parole,
{Which is essentially meaningless, given that }
It is not the role of the Parole Board to decide on issues of guilt
or innocence, and
The Board will consider the likelihood of you reoffending
*by taking into account the nature of your offence*
{Which you're claiming that you never committed in the first place]
If only protesting your innocence were a firm indication of actual innocence, life
would be so much easier all round. We wouldn't need trials for a start.
Sadly, however ...
In any system of justice there will be some miscarriages. But the problem is no-one
knows which they are. All we can do is try to minimise them, which I think we do
through all the safeguards that are currently in place as regards CPS appraisal, proof
beyond reasonable doubt, juries usually having to be unanimous etc, and by providing a
system of review when new compelling evidence comes to light.
It is very rare that you can say someone was not rightfully convicted on the evidence
presented in court. If it subsequently turns out that they did not commit the crime,
it's right they should be compensated, but again it's not easy to say they didn't
actually do it. Very often there is remaining doubt such that the conviction is
'unsafe' but there is no proof of innocence. What we should do in such circumstances
Is a matter for society. It's above my pay grade.
On 14/05/2025 08:09, Norman Wells wrote:
On 13/05/2025 21:13, billy bookcase wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrn10271lb.3nd.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-05-13, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8rej5jv626o
I note again, the lack of reporting of compensation ...
The thing I find it interesting for its, as far as I can find,
total lack of reporting is: why was he still in prison after
38 years, given he was sentenced to a minimum term of 16 years?
If it was because prisoners who maintain their innocence cannot
be paroled, then surely this policy needs reviewing,
The Parole Information Booklet states the following -
quote:
You do not have to admit your guilt prior to making an application
for parole, nor is denial of guilt an automatic bar to release
on parole licence.
{Which is essentially meaningless, given that }
It is not the role of the Parole Board to decide on issues of guilt
or innocence, and
* your case will be considered on the basis that you were rightfully
convicted.*
 The Board will consider the likelihood of you reoffending
*by taking into account the nature of your offence*
{Which you're claiming that you never committed in the first place]
If only protesting your innocence were a firm indication of actual
innocence, life would be so much easier all round. We wouldn't need
trials for a start.
Sadly, however ...
In any system of justice there will be some miscarriages. But the
problem is no-one knows which they are. All we can do is try to
minimise them, which I think we do through all the safeguards that are
currently in place as regards CPS appraisal, proof beyond reasonable
doubt, juries usually having to be unanimous etc, and by providing a
system of review when new compelling evidence comes to light.
One problem is that the Criminal Cases Review Commission has shown
itself to be slow, under-resourced, underskilled, perhaps because the establishment does not really want to burden the Court of Appeal with
such cases if there is any pretext for rejecting them.
It is very rare that you can say someone was not rightfully convicted
on the evidence presented in court.
How do you know? There may be many people who are convicted but know
that they did not commit the crime.
There are many cases where the
conviction is set aside because of some procedural error by the trial
judge. So I don't think "very rare" is accurate.
If it subsequently turns out that they
did not commit the crime, it's right they should be compensated, but
again it's not easy to say they didn't actually do it. Very often
there is remaining doubt such that the conviction is 'unsafe' but
there is no proof of innocence. What we should do in such
circumstances Is a matter for society. It's above my pay grade.
I think Peter Sullivan can qualify for compensation, fortunately for
him, but it won't make up for the many wasted years.
Just look at how long it took for the CCRC to do something for him. What
a leisurely process.
https://ccrc.gov.uk/decision/sullivan-peter/
On 14/05/2025 08:40, The Todal wrote:
On 14/05/2025 08:09, Norman Wells wrote:
On 13/05/2025 21:13, billy bookcase wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrn10271lb.3nd.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-05-13, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8rej5jv626o
I note again, the lack of reporting of compensation ...
The thing I find it interesting for its, as far as I can find,
total lack of reporting is: why was he still in prison after
38 years, given he was sentenced to a minimum term of 16 years?
If it was because prisoners who maintain their innocence cannot
be paroled, then surely this policy needs reviewing,
The Parole Information Booklet states the following -
quote:
You do not have to admit your guilt prior to making an application
for parole, nor is denial of guilt an automatic bar to release
on parole licence.
{Which is essentially meaningless, given that }
It is not the role of the Parole Board to decide on issues of guilt
or innocence, and
* your case will be considered on the basis that you were rightfully
convicted.*
The Board will consider the likelihood of you reoffending
*by taking into account the nature of your offence*
{Which you're claiming that you never committed in the first place]
If only protesting your innocence were a firm indication of actual
innocence, life would be so much easier all round. We wouldn't need
trials for a start.
Sadly, however ...
In any system of justice there will be some miscarriages. But the
problem is no-one knows which they are. All we can do is try to
minimise them, which I think we do through all the safeguards that are
currently in place as regards CPS appraisal, proof beyond reasonable
doubt, juries usually having to be unanimous etc, and by providing a
system of review when new compelling evidence comes to light.
One problem is that the Criminal Cases Review Commission has shown
itself to be slow, under-resourced, underskilled, perhaps because the
establishment does not really want to burden the Court of Appeal with
such cases if there is any pretext for rejecting them.
It is very rare that you can say someone was not rightfully convicted
on the evidence presented in court.
How do you know? There may be many people who are convicted but know
that they did not commit the crime.
If that were the case, I think there would be a lot more noise from them
than there appears to be.
There are many cases where the
conviction is set aside because of some procedural error by the trial
judge. So I don't think "very rare" is accurate.
I don't really think that's true. Where there is a procedural error by
the judge, that should be and usually is very apparent to the defence
team and provides grounds for immediate appeal. Auriol Grey is of
course a case in point. Even though there the defence team seemed a bit
slow on the uptake, the process worked.
If it subsequently turns out that they
did not commit the crime, it's right they should be compensated, but
again it's not easy to say they didn't actually do it. Very often
there is remaining doubt such that the conviction is 'unsafe' but
there is no proof of innocence. What we should do in such
circumstances Is a matter for society. It's above my pay grade.
I think Peter Sullivan can qualify for compensation, fortunately for
him, but it won't make up for the many wasted years.
Just look at how long it took for the CCRC to do something for him. What
a leisurely process.
https://ccrc.gov.uk/decision/sullivan-peter/
Indeed. Everything ought to work smoothly and efficiently first time
every time. Where resources are limited, however, they don't.
I agree he should be compensated for at least the time since he could
have been exonerated on DNA evidence, but that doesn't cover the whole
of his time in prison. He was convicted by a jury prior to DNA analysis being possible in what we can only assume was a fair trial where all the evidence available at the time was presented. It's the way we determine guilt. Was he unfairly convicted, or only unfairly detained for too
long? For what should compensation be paid?
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message news:m8ittsFj7ssU1@mid.individual.net...
On 13/05/2025 21:13, billy bookcase wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrn10271lb.3nd.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-05-13, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8rej5jv626o
I note again, the lack of reporting of compensation ...
The thing I find it interesting for its, as far as I can find,
total lack of reporting is: why was he still in prison after
38 years, given he was sentenced to a minimum term of 16 years?
If it was because prisoners who maintain their innocence cannot
be paroled, then surely this policy needs reviewing,
The Parole Information Booklet states the following -
quote:
You do not have to admit your guilt prior to making an application
for parole,
(A) nor is denial of guilt an automatic bar to release on parole licence.
{Which is essentially meaningless, given that }
It is not the role of the Parole Board to decide on issues of guilt
or innocence, and
(B) * your case will be considered on the basis that you were rightfully convicted.*
The Board will consider the likelihood of you reoffending
*by taking into account the nature of your offence*
{Which you're claiming that you never committed in the first place]
If only protesting your innocence were a firm indication of actual innocence,
life
would be so much easier all round. We wouldn't need trials for a start.
Sadly, however ...
In any system of justice there will be some miscarriages. But the problem is >> no-one
knows which they are. All we can do is try to minimise them, which I think we
do
through all the safeguards that are currently in place as regards CPS
appraisal, proof
beyond reasonable doubt, juries usually having to be unanimous etc, and by >> providing a
system of review when new compelling evidence comes to light.
It is very rare that you can say someone was not rightfully convicted on the >> evidence
presented in court. If it subsequently turns out that they did not commit the
crime,
it's right they should be compensated, but again it's not easy to say they >> didn't
actually do it. Very often there is remaining doubt such that the conviction >> is
'unsafe' but there is no proof of innocence. What we should do in such
circumstances
Is a matter for society. It's above my pay grade.
I'm not really sure how that addresses the point that I'm making.
Which is that on the one hand the Parole System can't be seen as a back-stop for an inadequate Appeals System.
While on the other hand for a prisoner to be considered for Parole there
must be some evidence that they've benefited from their sentence, that
they have learned their lesson. Which they obviously can't demonstrate
if they're claiming that they should never have been there in the first place.
In short. if the Parole Board are obliged to accept that the applicant was rightly
convicted, (B above) then if they insist they are innocent (A above) then surely
the Parole Board has no option but to conclude that they are [still] lying ? And thus are unsuitable for Parole.
bb
On 14 May 2025 at 10:05:05 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:m8ittsFj7ssU1@mid.individual.net...
You do not have to admit your guilt prior to making an application
for parole,
(A) nor is denial of guilt an automatic bar to release on parole licence.
{Which is essentially meaningless, given that }
It is not the role of the Parole Board to decide on issues of guilt
or innocence, and
(B) * your case will be considered on the basis that you were rightfully
convicted.*
The Board will consider the likelihood of you reoffending
*by taking into account the nature of your offence*
{Which you're claiming that you never committed in the first place]
If only protesting your innocence were a firm indication of actual innocence,
life
would be so much easier all round. We wouldn't need trials for a start. >>>
Sadly, however ...
In any system of justice there will be some miscarriages. But the problem is
no-one
knows which they are. All we can do is try to minimise them, which I think we
do
through all the safeguards that are currently in place as regards CPS
appraisal, proof
beyond reasonable doubt, juries usually having to be unanimous etc, and by >>> providing a
system of review when new compelling evidence comes to light.
It is very rare that you can say someone was not rightfully convicted on the
evidence
presented in court. If it subsequently turns out that they did not commit the
crime,
it's right they should be compensated, but again it's not easy to say they >>> didn't
actually do it. Very often there is remaining doubt such that the conviction
is
'unsafe' but there is no proof of innocence. What we should do in such
circumstances
Is a matter for society. It's above my pay grade.
I'm not really sure how that addresses the point that I'm making.
Which is that on the one hand the Parole System can't be seen as a back-stop >> for an inadequate Appeals System.
While on the other hand for a prisoner to be considered for Parole there
must be some evidence that they've benefited from their sentence, that
they have learned their lesson. Which they obviously can't demonstrate
if they're claiming that they should never have been there in the first place.
In short. if the Parole Board are obliged to accept that the applicant was >> rightly
convicted, (B above) then if they insist they are innocent (A above) then
surely
the Parole Board has no option but to conclude that they are [still] lying ?
And thus are unsuitable for Parole.
bb
Even if the parole board are allowed to free prisoners who have not admitted their guilt it is obviously hazardous to the reputation of members of said board to do so if the person goes on to commit further crimes
On 14 May 2025 at 10:15:59 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 14/05/2025 08:40, The Todal wrote:
On 14/05/2025 08:09, Norman Wells wrote:
On 13/05/2025 21:13, billy bookcase wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrn10271lb.3nd.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-05-13, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8rej5jv626o
I note again, the lack of reporting of compensation ...
The thing I find it interesting for its, as far as I can find,
total lack of reporting is: why was he still in prison after 38
years, given he was sentenced to a minimum term of 16 years?
If it was because prisoners who maintain their innocence cannot be >>>>>> paroled, then surely this policy needs reviewing,
The Parole Information Booklet states the following -
quote:
You do not have to admit your guilt prior to making an application
for parole, nor is denial of guilt an automatic bar to release on
parole licence.
{Which is essentially meaningless, given that }
It is not the role of the Parole Board to decide on issues of guilt
or innocence, and
* your case will be considered on the basis that you were rightfully >>>>> convicted.*
The Board will consider the likelihood of you reoffending
*by taking into account the nature of your offence*
{Which you're claiming that you never committed in the first place]
If only protesting your innocence were a firm indication of actual
innocence, life would be so much easier all round. We wouldn't need
trials for a start.
Sadly, however ...
In any system of justice there will be some miscarriages. But the
problem is no-one knows which they are. All we can do is try to
minimise them, which I think we do through all the safeguards that
are currently in place as regards CPS appraisal, proof beyond
reasonable doubt, juries usually having to be unanimous etc, and by
providing a system of review when new compelling evidence comes to
light.
One problem is that the Criminal Cases Review Commission has shown
itself to be slow, under-resourced, underskilled, perhaps because the
establishment does not really want to burden the Court of Appeal with
such cases if there is any pretext for rejecting them.
It is very rare that you can say someone was not rightfully convicted
on the evidence presented in court.
How do you know? There may be many people who are convicted but know
that they did not commit the crime.
If that were the case, I think there would be a lot more noise from
them than there appears to be.
There are many cases where the conviction is set aside because of some
procedural error by the trial judge. So I don't think "very rare" is
accurate.
I don't really think that's true. Where there is a procedural error by
the judge, that should be and usually is very apparent to the defence
team and provides grounds for immediate appeal. Auriol Grey is of
course a case in point. Even though there the defence team seemed a
bit slow on the uptake, the process worked.
If it subsequently turns out that they did not commit the crime, it's
right they should be compensated, but again it's not easy to say they
didn't actually do it. Very often there is remaining doubt such that
the conviction is 'unsafe' but there is no proof of innocence. What
we should do in such circumstances Is a matter for society. It's
above my pay grade.
I think Peter Sullivan can qualify for compensation, fortunately for
him, but it won't make up for the many wasted years.
Just look at how long it took for the CCRC to do something for him.
What a leisurely process.
https://ccrc.gov.uk/decision/sullivan-peter/
Indeed. Everything ought to work smoothly and efficiently first time
every time. Where resources are limited, however, they don't.
I agree he should be compensated for at least the time since he could
have been exonerated on DNA evidence, but that doesn't cover the whole
of his time in prison. He was convicted by a jury prior to DNA
analysis being possible in what we can only assume was a fair trial
where all the evidence available at the time was presented. It's the
way we determine guilt. Was he unfairly convicted, or only unfairly
detained for too long? For what should compensation be paid?
I believe that people should be compensated for being wrongly convicted whether the process was 'fair' or not.
Even if the parole board are allowed to free prisoners who have not admitted their guilt it is obviously hazardous to the reputation of members of said board to do so if the person goes on to commit further crimes. I am not sure what solution is possible. Unless parole is made automatic after a certain time in the absence of positive evidence of an intention to commit further crimes. But I don't think the tabloids, and populist politicians, would accept
that.
On 14 May 2025 at 10:15:59 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 14/05/2025 08:40, The Todal wrote:
On 14/05/2025 08:09, Norman Wells wrote:
On 13/05/2025 21:13, billy bookcase wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrn10271lb.3nd.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-05-13, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8rej5jv626o
I note again, the lack of reporting of compensation ...
The thing I find it interesting for its, as far as I can find,
total lack of reporting is: why was he still in prison after
38 years, given he was sentenced to a minimum term of 16 years?
If it was because prisoners who maintain their innocence cannot
be paroled, then surely this policy needs reviewing,
The Parole Information Booklet states the following -
quote:
You do not have to admit your guilt prior to making an application
for parole, nor is denial of guilt an automatic bar to release
on parole licence.
{Which is essentially meaningless, given that }
It is not the role of the Parole Board to decide on issues of guilt
or innocence, and
* your case will be considered on the basis that you were rightfully >>>>> convicted.*
The Board will consider the likelihood of you reoffending
*by taking into account the nature of your offence*
{Which you're claiming that you never committed in the first place]
If only protesting your innocence were a firm indication of actual
innocence, life would be so much easier all round. We wouldn't need
trials for a start.
Sadly, however ...
In any system of justice there will be some miscarriages. But the
problem is no-one knows which they are. All we can do is try to
minimise them, which I think we do through all the safeguards that are >>>> currently in place as regards CPS appraisal, proof beyond reasonable
doubt, juries usually having to be unanimous etc, and by providing a
system of review when new compelling evidence comes to light.
One problem is that the Criminal Cases Review Commission has shown
itself to be slow, under-resourced, underskilled, perhaps because the
establishment does not really want to burden the Court of Appeal with
such cases if there is any pretext for rejecting them.
It is very rare that you can say someone was not rightfully convicted
on the evidence presented in court.
How do you know? There may be many people who are convicted but know
that they did not commit the crime.
If that were the case, I think there would be a lot more noise from them
than there appears to be.
There are many cases where the
conviction is set aside because of some procedural error by the trial
judge. So I don't think "very rare" is accurate.
I don't really think that's true. Where there is a procedural error by
the judge, that should be and usually is very apparent to the defence
team and provides grounds for immediate appeal. Auriol Grey is of
course a case in point. Even though there the defence team seemed a bit
slow on the uptake, the process worked.
If it subsequently turns out that they
did not commit the crime, it's right they should be compensated, but
again it's not easy to say they didn't actually do it. Very often
there is remaining doubt such that the conviction is 'unsafe' but
there is no proof of innocence. What we should do in such
circumstances Is a matter for society. It's above my pay grade.
I think Peter Sullivan can qualify for compensation, fortunately for
him, but it won't make up for the many wasted years.
Just look at how long it took for the CCRC to do something for him. What >>> a leisurely process.
https://ccrc.gov.uk/decision/sullivan-peter/
Indeed. Everything ought to work smoothly and efficiently first time
every time. Where resources are limited, however, they don't.
I agree he should be compensated for at least the time since he could
have been exonerated on DNA evidence, but that doesn't cover the whole
of his time in prison. He was convicted by a jury prior to DNA analysis
being possible in what we can only assume was a fair trial where all the
evidence available at the time was presented. It's the way we determine
guilt. Was he unfairly convicted, or only unfairly detained for too
long? For what should compensation be paid?
I believe that people should be compensated for being wrongly convicted whether the process was 'fair' or not.
On 14 May 2025 at 12:25:58 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 14/05/2025 11:09, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 14 May 2025 at 10:15:59 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
On 14/05/2025 08:40, The Todal wrote:
On 14/05/2025 08:09, Norman Wells wrote:
On 13/05/2025 21:13, billy bookcase wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrn10271lb.3nd.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-05-13, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8rej5jv626o
I note again, the lack of reporting of compensation ...
The thing I find it interesting for its, as far as I can find, >>>>>>>> total lack of reporting is: why was he still in prison after 38 >>>>>>>> years, given he was sentenced to a minimum term of 16 years?
If it was because prisoners who maintain their innocence cannot >>>>>>>> be paroled, then surely this policy needs reviewing,
The Parole Information Booklet states the following -
quote:
You do not have to admit your guilt prior to making an application >>>>>>> for parole, nor is denial of guilt an automatic bar to release on >>>>>>> parole licence.
{Which is essentially meaningless, given that }
It is not the role of the Parole Board to decide on issues of
guilt or innocence, and
* your case will be considered on the basis that you were
rightfully convicted.*
The Board will consider the likelihood of you reoffending
*by taking into account the nature of your offence*
{Which you're claiming that you never committed in the first
place]
If only protesting your innocence were a firm indication of actual >>>>>> innocence, life would be so much easier all round. We wouldn't
need trials for a start.
Sadly, however ...
In any system of justice there will be some miscarriages. But the >>>>>> problem is no-one knows which they are. All we can do is try to
minimise them, which I think we do through all the safeguards that >>>>>> are currently in place as regards CPS appraisal, proof beyond
reasonable doubt, juries usually having to be unanimous etc, and by >>>>>> providing a system of review when new compelling evidence comes to >>>>>> light.
One problem is that the Criminal Cases Review Commission has shown
itself to be slow, under-resourced, underskilled, perhaps because
the establishment does not really want to burden the Court of Appeal >>>>> with such cases if there is any pretext for rejecting them.
It is very rare that you can say someone was not rightfully
convicted on the evidence presented in court.
How do you know? There may be many people who are convicted but know >>>>> that they did not commit the crime.
If that were the case, I think there would be a lot more noise from
them than there appears to be.
There are many cases where the conviction is set aside because of
some procedural error by the trial judge. So I don't think "very
rare" is accurate.
I don't really think that's true. Where there is a procedural error
by the judge, that should be and usually is very apparent to the
defence team and provides grounds for immediate appeal. Auriol Grey
is of course a case in point. Even though there the defence team
seemed a bit slow on the uptake, the process worked.
If it subsequently turns out that they did not commit the crime,
it's right they should be compensated, but again it's not easy to
say they didn't actually do it. Very often there is remaining
doubt such that the conviction is 'unsafe' but there is no proof of >>>>>> innocence. What we should do in such circumstances Is a matter for >>>>>> society. It's above my pay grade.
I think Peter Sullivan can qualify for compensation, fortunately for >>>>> him, but it won't make up for the many wasted years.
Just look at how long it took for the CCRC to do something for him.
What a leisurely process.
https://ccrc.gov.uk/decision/sullivan-peter/
Indeed. Everything ought to work smoothly and efficiently first time
every time. Where resources are limited, however, they don't.
I agree he should be compensated for at least the time since he could
have been exonerated on DNA evidence, but that doesn't cover the
whole of his time in prison. He was convicted by a jury prior to DNA
analysis being possible in what we can only assume was a fair trial
where all the evidence available at the time was presented. It's the
way we determine guilt. Was he unfairly convicted, or only unfairly
detained for too long? For what should compensation be paid?
I believe that people should be compensated for being wrongly
convicted whether the process was 'fair' or not.
It's all very well saying that, but in most cases it is not clear-cut
or provable. What then?
Even if the Court of Appeal finds for one reason or another that the
original verdict was 'unsafe', it doesn't necessarily mean the
convicted person didn't do the crime. What then?
Well then it is not certain that they have been wrongly convicted: in
the current case someone else's semen was found all over the body. I
think it is fair to say he was wrongly convicted.
On 14/05/2025 11:09, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 14 May 2025 at 10:15:59 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 14/05/2025 08:40, The Todal wrote:
On 14/05/2025 08:09, Norman Wells wrote:
On 13/05/2025 21:13, billy bookcase wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in messageIf only protesting your innocence were a firm indication of actual
news:slrn10271lb.3nd.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-05-13, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8rej5jv626o
I note again, the lack of reporting of compensation ...
The thing I find it interesting for its, as far as I can find,
total lack of reporting is: why was he still in prison after
38 years, given he was sentenced to a minimum term of 16 years?
If it was because prisoners who maintain their innocence cannot
be paroled, then surely this policy needs reviewing,
The Parole Information Booklet states the following -
quote:
You do not have to admit your guilt prior to making an application >>>>>> for parole, nor is denial of guilt an automatic bar to release
on parole licence.
{Which is essentially meaningless, given that }
It is not the role of the Parole Board to decide on issues of guilt >>>>>> or innocence, and
* your case will be considered on the basis that you were rightfully >>>>>> convicted.*
The Board will consider the likelihood of you reoffending
*by taking into account the nature of your offence*
{Which you're claiming that you never committed in the first place] >>>>>
innocence, life would be so much easier all round. We wouldn't need >>>>> trials for a start.
Sadly, however ...
In any system of justice there will be some miscarriages. But the
problem is no-one knows which they are. All we can do is try to
minimise them, which I think we do through all the safeguards that are >>>>> currently in place as regards CPS appraisal, proof beyond reasonable >>>>> doubt, juries usually having to be unanimous etc, and by providing a >>>>> system of review when new compelling evidence comes to light.
One problem is that the Criminal Cases Review Commission has shown
itself to be slow, under-resourced, underskilled, perhaps because the
establishment does not really want to burden the Court of Appeal with
such cases if there is any pretext for rejecting them.
It is very rare that you can say someone was not rightfully convicted >>>>> on the evidence presented in court.
How do you know? There may be many people who are convicted but know
that they did not commit the crime.
If that were the case, I think there would be a lot more noise from them >>> than there appears to be.
There are many cases where the
conviction is set aside because of some procedural error by the trial
judge. So I don't think "very rare" is accurate.
I don't really think that's true. Where there is a procedural error by
the judge, that should be and usually is very apparent to the defence
team and provides grounds for immediate appeal. Auriol Grey is of
course a case in point. Even though there the defence team seemed a bit >>> slow on the uptake, the process worked.
If it subsequently turns out that they
did not commit the crime, it's right they should be compensated, but >>>>> again it's not easy to say they didn't actually do it. Very often
there is remaining doubt such that the conviction is 'unsafe' but
there is no proof of innocence. What we should do in such
circumstances Is a matter for society. It's above my pay grade.
I think Peter Sullivan can qualify for compensation, fortunately for
him, but it won't make up for the many wasted years.
Just look at how long it took for the CCRC to do something for him. What >>>> a leisurely process.
https://ccrc.gov.uk/decision/sullivan-peter/
Indeed. Everything ought to work smoothly and efficiently first time
every time. Where resources are limited, however, they don't.
I agree he should be compensated for at least the time since he could
have been exonerated on DNA evidence, but that doesn't cover the whole
of his time in prison. He was convicted by a jury prior to DNA analysis >>> being possible in what we can only assume was a fair trial where all the >>> evidence available at the time was presented. It's the way we determine >>> guilt. Was he unfairly convicted, or only unfairly detained for too
long? For what should compensation be paid?
I believe that people should be compensated for being wrongly convicted
whether the process was 'fair' or not.
It's all very well saying that, but in most cases it is not clear-cut or provable. What then?
Even if the Court of Appeal finds for one reason or another that the
original verdict was 'unsafe', it doesn't necessarily mean the convicted person didn't do the crime. What then?
On 14 May 2025 at 10:05:05 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:m8ittsFj7ssU1@mid.individual.net...
On 13/05/2025 21:13, billy bookcase wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrn10271lb.3nd.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-05-13, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8rej5jv626o
I note again, the lack of reporting of compensation ...
The thing I find it interesting for its, as far as I can find,
total lack of reporting is: why was he still in prison after
38 years, given he was sentenced to a minimum term of 16 years?
If it was because prisoners who maintain their innocence cannot
be paroled, then surely this policy needs reviewing,
The Parole Information Booklet states the following -
quote:
You do not have to admit your guilt prior to making an application
for parole,
(A) nor is denial of guilt an automatic bar to release on parole licence.
{Which is essentially meaningless, given that }
It is not the role of the Parole Board to decide on issues of guilt
or innocence, and
(B) * your case will be considered on the basis that you were rightfully
convicted.*
The Board will consider the likelihood of you reoffending
*by taking into account the nature of your offence*
{Which you're claiming that you never committed in the first place]
If only protesting your innocence were a firm indication of actual innocence,
life
would be so much easier all round. We wouldn't need trials for a start. >>>
Sadly, however ...
In any system of justice there will be some miscarriages. But the problem is
no-one
knows which they are. All we can do is try to minimise them, which I think we
do
through all the safeguards that are currently in place as regards CPS
appraisal, proof
beyond reasonable doubt, juries usually having to be unanimous etc, and by >>> providing a
system of review when new compelling evidence comes to light.
It is very rare that you can say someone was not rightfully convicted on the
evidence
presented in court. If it subsequently turns out that they did not commit the
crime,
it's right they should be compensated, but again it's not easy to say they >>> didn't
actually do it. Very often there is remaining doubt such that the conviction
is
'unsafe' but there is no proof of innocence. What we should do in such
circumstances
Is a matter for society. It's above my pay grade.
I'm not really sure how that addresses the point that I'm making.
Which is that on the one hand the Parole System can't be seen as a back-stop >> for an inadequate Appeals System.
While on the other hand for a prisoner to be considered for Parole there
must be some evidence that they've benefited from their sentence, that
they have learned their lesson. Which they obviously can't demonstrate
if they're claiming that they should never have been there in the first place.
In short. if the Parole Board are obliged to accept that the applicant was >> rightly
convicted, (B above) then if they insist they are innocent (A above) then
surely
the Parole Board has no option but to conclude that they are [still] lying ?
And thus are unsuitable for Parole.
bb
Even if the parole board are allowed to free prisoners who have not admitted their guilt it is obviously hazardous to the reputation of members of said board to do so if the person goes on to commit further crimes.
I am not sure what solution is possible.
Unless parole is made automatic after a certain
time in the absence of positive evidence of an intention to commit further crimes. But I don't think the tabloids, and populist politicians, would accept
that.
On 14/05/2025 11:14, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 14 May 2025 at 10:05:05 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:m8ittsFj7ssU1@mid.individual.net...
You do not have to admit your guilt prior to making an application
for parole,
(A) nor is denial of guilt an automatic bar to release on parole licence. >>>
{Which is essentially meaningless, given that }
It is not the role of the Parole Board to decide on issues of guilt
or innocence, and
(B) * your case will be considered on the basis that you were rightfully >>> convicted.*
The Board will consider the likelihood of you reoffending
*by taking into account the nature of your offence*
{Which you're claiming that you never committed in the first place]
If only protesting your innocence were a firm indication of actual innocence,
life
would be so much easier all round. We wouldn't need trials for a start. >>>>
Sadly, however ...
In any system of justice there will be some miscarriages. But the problem is
no-one
knows which they are. All we can do is try to minimise them, which I think we
do
through all the safeguards that are currently in place as regards CPS
appraisal, proof
beyond reasonable doubt, juries usually having to be unanimous etc, and by >>>> providing a
system of review when new compelling evidence comes to light.
It is very rare that you can say someone was not rightfully convicted on the
evidence
presented in court. If it subsequently turns out that they did not commit the
crime,
it's right they should be compensated, but again it's not easy to say they >>>> didn't
actually do it. Very often there is remaining doubt such that the conviction
is
'unsafe' but there is no proof of innocence. What we should do in such >>>> circumstances
Is a matter for society. It's above my pay grade.
I'm not really sure how that addresses the point that I'm making.
Which is that on the one hand the Parole System can't be seen as a back-stop
for an inadequate Appeals System.
While on the other hand for a prisoner to be considered for Parole there >>> must be some evidence that they've benefited from their sentence, that
they have learned their lesson. Which they obviously can't demonstrate
if they're claiming that they should never have been there in the first place.
In short. if the Parole Board are obliged to accept that the applicant was >>> rightly
convicted, (B above) then if they insist they are innocent (A above) then >>> surely
the Parole Board has no option but to conclude that they are [still] lying ?
And thus are unsuitable for Parole.
bb
Even if the parole board are allowed to free prisoners who have not admitted >> their guilt it is obviously hazardous to the reputation of members of said >> board to do so if the person goes on to commit further crimes
That wouldn't prove that he committed the original offence. And it could
be because he was corrupted, or learned criminal techniques while in prison.
"He Admitted his Crime and So They Let Him Out To Do It Again !"
On Wed, 14 May 2025 12:38:17 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 14 May 2025 at 12:25:58 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 14/05/2025 11:09, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 14 May 2025 at 10:15:59 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
On 14/05/2025 08:40, The Todal wrote:
On 14/05/2025 08:09, Norman Wells wrote:
On 13/05/2025 21:13, billy bookcase wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrn10271lb.3nd.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-05-13, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8rej5jv626o
I note again, the lack of reporting of compensation ...
The thing I find it interesting for its, as far as I can find, >>>>>>>>> total lack of reporting is: why was he still in prison after 38 >>>>>>>>> years, given he was sentenced to a minimum term of 16 years? >>>>>>>>>
If it was because prisoners who maintain their innocence cannot >>>>>>>>> be paroled, then surely this policy needs reviewing,
The Parole Information Booklet states the following -
quote:
You do not have to admit your guilt prior to making an application >>>>>>>> for parole, nor is denial of guilt an automatic bar to release on >>>>>>>> parole licence.
{Which is essentially meaningless, given that }
It is not the role of the Parole Board to decide on issues of
guilt or innocence, and
* your case will be considered on the basis that you were
rightfully convicted.*
The Board will consider the likelihood of you reoffending
*by taking into account the nature of your offence*
{Which you're claiming that you never committed in the first
place]
If only protesting your innocence were a firm indication of actual >>>>>>> innocence, life would be so much easier all round. We wouldn't
need trials for a start.
Sadly, however ...
In any system of justice there will be some miscarriages. But the >>>>>>> problem is no-one knows which they are. All we can do is try to >>>>>>> minimise them, which I think we do through all the safeguards that >>>>>>> are currently in place as regards CPS appraisal, proof beyond
reasonable doubt, juries usually having to be unanimous etc, and by >>>>>>> providing a system of review when new compelling evidence comes to >>>>>>> light.
One problem is that the Criminal Cases Review Commission has shown >>>>>> itself to be slow, under-resourced, underskilled, perhaps because
the establishment does not really want to burden the Court of Appeal >>>>>> with such cases if there is any pretext for rejecting them.
It is very rare that you can say someone was not rightfully
convicted on the evidence presented in court.
How do you know? There may be many people who are convicted but know >>>>>> that they did not commit the crime.
If that were the case, I think there would be a lot more noise from
them than there appears to be.
There are many cases where the conviction is set aside because of
some procedural error by the trial judge. So I don't think "very
rare" is accurate.
I don't really think that's true. Where there is a procedural error >>>>> by the judge, that should be and usually is very apparent to the
defence team and provides grounds for immediate appeal. Auriol Grey >>>>> is of course a case in point. Even though there the defence team
seemed a bit slow on the uptake, the process worked.
If it subsequently turns out that they did not commit the crime, >>>>>>> it's right they should be compensated, but again it's not easy to >>>>>>> say they didn't actually do it. Very often there is remaining
doubt such that the conviction is 'unsafe' but there is no proof of >>>>>>> innocence. What we should do in such circumstances Is a matter for >>>>>>> society. It's above my pay grade.
I think Peter Sullivan can qualify for compensation, fortunately for >>>>>> him, but it won't make up for the many wasted years.
Just look at how long it took for the CCRC to do something for him. >>>>>> What a leisurely process.
https://ccrc.gov.uk/decision/sullivan-peter/
Indeed. Everything ought to work smoothly and efficiently first time >>>>> every time. Where resources are limited, however, they don't.
I agree he should be compensated for at least the time since he could >>>>> have been exonerated on DNA evidence, but that doesn't cover the
whole of his time in prison. He was convicted by a jury prior to DNA >>>>> analysis being possible in what we can only assume was a fair trial
where all the evidence available at the time was presented. It's the >>>>> way we determine guilt. Was he unfairly convicted, or only unfairly >>>>> detained for too long? For what should compensation be paid?
I believe that people should be compensated for being wrongly
convicted whether the process was 'fair' or not.
It's all very well saying that, but in most cases it is not clear-cut
or provable. What then?
Even if the Court of Appeal finds for one reason or another that the
original verdict was 'unsafe', it doesn't necessarily mean the
convicted person didn't do the crime. What then?
Well then it is not certain that they have been wrongly convicted: in
the current case someone else's semen was found all over the body. I
think it is fair to say he was wrongly convicted.
<sense of deja vu>
But in English law, that doesn't automatically equate to a miscarriage of justice (and therefore compensation).
On Wed, 14 May 2025 14:09:13 +0100, billy bookcase wrote:
"He Admitted his Crime and So They Let Him Out To Do It Again !"
Totally OT, but shades of Jasper Carrots insurance claim routine ..
"He admitted it was his fault and he'd been run over before !"
On 14 May 2025 at 13:54:56 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Wed, 14 May 2025 12:38:17 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 14 May 2025 at 12:25:58 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>>
On 14/05/2025 11:09, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 14 May 2025 at 10:15:59 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
On 14/05/2025 08:40, The Todal wrote:
On 14/05/2025 08:09, Norman Wells wrote:
On 13/05/2025 21:13, billy bookcase wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrn10271lb.3nd.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-05-13, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8rej5jv626o
I note again, the lack of reporting of compensation ...
The thing I find it interesting for its, as far as I can find, >>>>>>>>>> total lack of reporting is: why was he still in prison after 38 >>>>>>>>>> years, given he was sentenced to a minimum term of 16 years? >>>>>>>>>>
If it was because prisoners who maintain their innocence cannot >>>>>>>>>> be paroled, then surely this policy needs reviewing,
The Parole Information Booklet states the following -
quote:
You do not have to admit your guilt prior to making an application >>>>>>>>> for parole, nor is denial of guilt an automatic bar to release on >>>>>>>>> parole licence.
{Which is essentially meaningless, given that }
It is not the role of the Parole Board to decide on issues of >>>>>>>>> guilt or innocence, and
* your case will be considered on the basis that you were
rightfully convicted.*
The Board will consider the likelihood of you reoffending >>>>>>>>>
*by taking into account the nature of your offence*
{Which you're claiming that you never committed in the first >>>>>>>>> place]
If only protesting your innocence were a firm indication of actual >>>>>>>> innocence, life would be so much easier all round. We wouldn't >>>>>>>> need trials for a start.
Sadly, however ...
In any system of justice there will be some miscarriages. But the >>>>>>>> problem is no-one knows which they are. All we can do is try to >>>>>>>> minimise them, which I think we do through all the safeguards that >>>>>>>> are currently in place as regards CPS appraisal, proof beyond
reasonable doubt, juries usually having to be unanimous etc, and by >>>>>>>> providing a system of review when new compelling evidence comes to >>>>>>>> light.
One problem is that the Criminal Cases Review Commission has shown >>>>>>> itself to be slow, under-resourced, underskilled, perhaps because >>>>>>> the establishment does not really want to burden the Court of Appeal >>>>>>> with such cases if there is any pretext for rejecting them.
It is very rare that you can say someone was not rightfully
convicted on the evidence presented in court.
How do you know? There may be many people who are convicted but know >>>>>>> that they did not commit the crime.
If that were the case, I think there would be a lot more noise from >>>>>> them than there appears to be.
There are many cases where the conviction is set aside because of >>>>>>> some procedural error by the trial judge. So I don't think "very >>>>>>> rare" is accurate.
I don't really think that's true. Where there is a procedural error >>>>>> by the judge, that should be and usually is very apparent to the
defence team and provides grounds for immediate appeal. Auriol Grey >>>>>> is of course a case in point. Even though there the defence team
seemed a bit slow on the uptake, the process worked.
If it subsequently turns out that they did not commit the crime, >>>>>>>> it's right they should be compensated, but again it's not easy to >>>>>>>> say they didn't actually do it. Very often there is remaining >>>>>>>> doubt such that the conviction is 'unsafe' but there is no proof of >>>>>>>> innocence. What we should do in such circumstances Is a matter for >>>>>>>> society. It's above my pay grade.
I think Peter Sullivan can qualify for compensation, fortunately for >>>>>>> him, but it won't make up for the many wasted years.
Just look at how long it took for the CCRC to do something for him. >>>>>>> What a leisurely process.
https://ccrc.gov.uk/decision/sullivan-peter/
Indeed. Everything ought to work smoothly and efficiently first time >>>>>> every time. Where resources are limited, however, they don't.
I agree he should be compensated for at least the time since he could >>>>>> have been exonerated on DNA evidence, but that doesn't cover the
whole of his time in prison. He was convicted by a jury prior to DNA >>>>>> analysis being possible in what we can only assume was a fair trial >>>>>> where all the evidence available at the time was presented. It's the >>>>>> way we determine guilt. Was he unfairly convicted, or only unfairly >>>>>> detained for too long? For what should compensation be paid?
I believe that people should be compensated for being wrongly
convicted whether the process was 'fair' or not.
It's all very well saying that, but in most cases it is not clear-cut
or provable. What then?
Even if the Court of Appeal finds for one reason or another that the
original verdict was 'unsafe', it doesn't necessarily mean the
convicted person didn't do the crime. What then?
Well then it is not certain that they have been wrongly convicted: in
the current case someone else's semen was found all over the body. I
think it is fair to say he was wrongly convicted.
<sense of deja vu>
But in English law, that doesn't automatically equate to a miscarriage of
justice (and therefore compensation).
I perfectly well understand that. I am expressing a preference for the law to be changed.
On 14/05/2025 14:49, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 14 May 2025 at 13:54:56 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 14 May 2025 12:38:17 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 14 May 2025 at 12:25:58 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
On 14/05/2025 11:09, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 14 May 2025 at 10:15:59 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
On 14/05/2025 08:40, The Todal wrote:
On 14/05/2025 08:09, Norman Wells wrote:
On 13/05/2025 21:13, billy bookcase wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>> news:slrn10271lb.3nd.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-05-13, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8rej5jv626o
The thing I find it interesting for its, as far as I can find, >>>>>>>>>>> total lack of reporting is: why was he still in prison after >>>>>>>>>>> 38 years, given he was sentenced to a minimum term of 16 >>>>>>>>>>> years?
I note again, the lack of reporting of compensation ... >>>>>>>>>>>
If it was because prisoners who maintain their innocence >>>>>>>>>>> cannot be paroled, then surely this policy needs reviewing, >>>>>>>>>>
The Parole Information Booklet states the following -
quote:
You do not have to admit your guilt prior to making an
application for parole, nor is denial of guilt an automatic bar >>>>>>>>>> to release on parole licence.
{Which is essentially meaningless, given that }
It is not the role of the Parole Board to decide on issues of >>>>>>>>>> guilt or innocence, and
* your case will be considered on the basis that you were
rightfully convicted.*
The Board will consider the likelihood of you reoffending >>>>>>>>>>
*by taking into account the nature of your offence*
{Which you're claiming that you never committed in the first >>>>>>>>>> place]
If only protesting your innocence were a firm indication of
actual innocence, life would be so much easier all round. We >>>>>>>>> wouldn't need trials for a start.
Sadly, however ...
In any system of justice there will be some miscarriages. But >>>>>>>>> the problem is no-one knows which they are. All we can do is >>>>>>>>> try to minimise them, which I think we do through all the
safeguards that are currently in place as regards CPS appraisal, >>>>>>>>> proof beyond reasonable doubt, juries usually having to be
unanimous etc, and by providing a system of review when new
compelling evidence comes to light.
One problem is that the Criminal Cases Review Commission has
shown itself to be slow, under-resourced, underskilled, perhaps >>>>>>>> because the establishment does not really want to burden the
Court of Appeal with such cases if there is any pretext for
rejecting them.
It is very rare that you can say someone was not rightfully
convicted on the evidence presented in court.
How do you know? There may be many people who are convicted but >>>>>>>> know that they did not commit the crime.
If that were the case, I think there would be a lot more noise
from them than there appears to be.
There are many cases where the conviction is set aside because of >>>>>>>> some procedural error by the trial judge. So I don't think "very >>>>>>>> rare" is accurate.
I don't really think that's true. Where there is a procedural
error by the judge, that should be and usually is very apparent to >>>>>>> the defence team and provides grounds for immediate appeal.
Auriol Grey is of course a case in point. Even though there the >>>>>>> defence team seemed a bit slow on the uptake, the process worked. >>>>>>>
If it subsequently turns out that they did not commit the crime, >>>>>>>>> it's right they should be compensated, but again it's not easy >>>>>>>>> to say they didn't actually do it. Very often there isI think Peter Sullivan can qualify for compensation, fortunately >>>>>>>> for him, but it won't make up for the many wasted years.
remaining doubt such that the conviction is 'unsafe' but there >>>>>>>>> is no proof of innocence. What we should do in such
circumstances Is a matter for society. It's above my pay grade. >>>>>>>>
Just look at how long it took for the CCRC to do something for >>>>>>>> him. What a leisurely process.
https://ccrc.gov.uk/decision/sullivan-peter/
Indeed. Everything ought to work smoothly and efficiently first >>>>>>> time every time. Where resources are limited, however, they
don't.
I agree he should be compensated for at least the time since he
could have been exonerated on DNA evidence, but that doesn't cover >>>>>>> the whole of his time in prison. He was convicted by a jury prior >>>>>>> to DNA analysis being possible in what we can only assume was a
fair trial where all the evidence available at the time was
presented. It's the way we determine guilt. Was he unfairly
convicted, or only unfairly detained for too long? For what
should compensation be paid?
I believe that people should be compensated for being wrongly
convicted whether the process was 'fair' or not.
It's all very well saying that, but in most cases it is not
clear-cut or provable. What then?
Even if the Court of Appeal finds for one reason or another that the >>>>> original verdict was 'unsafe', it doesn't necessarily mean the
convicted person didn't do the crime. What then?
Well then it is not certain that they have been wrongly convicted: in
the current case someone else's semen was found all over the body. I
think it is fair to say he was wrongly convicted.
<sense of deja vu>
But in English law, that doesn't automatically equate to a miscarriage
of justice (and therefore compensation).
I perfectly well understand that. I am expressing a preference for the
law to be changed.
But to say what, and include whom exactly? What criteria would define someone who has been 'wrongly convicted'?
You see, you actually seem to be arguing for no change in the current
law which is that if the person can prove his innocence (ie the only circumstance where it *is* certain he was wrongly convicted) then compensation is payable anyway.
The lack of mention of compensation in the article suggests he's likely
not getting any. Presumably the prison service aren't going to let that
stop them charging him c. £500k board and lodging (14,113 nights @ £30 night sounds fair).
Of course while he was rotting in jail, the search for the real killer stopped. Let's hope they didn't strike again.
Yet another advertisement for the death penalty, surely.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce809e3gd1xo
A man who has served almost 38 years in prison for the murder of a woman
has had his conviction quashed by the Court of Appeal after new DNA
evidence emerged.
Peter Sullivan was jailed over the 1986 killing of 21-year-old barmaid
Diane Sindall, who was subjected to a frenzied sexual attack in
Birkenhead, Merseyside, as she walked home from a shift.
The Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) - the statutory body set up
to investigate potential miscarriages of justice - had referred Mr
Sullivan's case back to the appeal court last year after fresh testing
found a DNA profile pointing to an unknown attacker in semen samples preserved from the crime scene.
I now read that he will have to wait 2 years for compensation to be
awarded.
Is such asymmetry in state affairs (you try telling them they can wait 2 years for your parking fine) not an affront to natural justice ?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 498 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 27:34:39 |
| Calls: | 9,830 |
| Calls today: | 9 |
| Files: | 13,761 |
| Messages: | 6,192,325 |
| Posted today: | 1 |
