Compensation claims are only for the innocent.

Read More About Legal

The Home Office announced last week that innocence and ‘not guilty’ are not one and the same and this can affect the amount of compensation given to those who have been falsely imprisoned.

It has been revealed that the Ministry of Justice will not pay compensation to a man who was wrongly convicted and spent six years in jail for murder. This decision was based on the fact that he was not “clearly innocent”.

This has been highlighted in the case of the former school teacher, Sion Jenkins, whose claim for £500,000 was refused by the government. Jenkins had been jailed for the murder of his foster daughter, but due to a quashed conviction and two retrials with hung juries, Jenkins was released.

Officials have said that the Court of Appeal have very clear guidelines as to when compensation is due. These guidelines cover situations such as the introduction of new evidence which later proves innocence and not instances where the prosecution simple has a weak case.

Paying compensation for miscarriages of justice has always been highly controversial. For example, last year, appeal court judges ruled in favour of Stephen Miller who had spent four years in prison based on a wrongful conviction. But the award was for only £55,000 which was described as “irrationally low” by campaigners. An independent assessor, Lord Daniel Brennan QC agreed with this remark and recommended an increased award for Miller.

Campaigners have always found the compensation claim guidelines to be used unfairly, and often argue that decisions such as those made above, can undermine judges and juries.

Harry Fletcher, of the National Association of Probation Officers, said: "It seems to me that the absolute minimum is paid to people and as many deductions as possible are made, quite apart from the time people have to wait. When someone is cleared of a crime, they just walk out through the court doors, they don't qualify for probation support or assistance. It's not just the finances, there's no assessment of their needs and it is extraordinarily difficult for people to adapt.

"The Home Office clearly thinks that Jenkins was freed on a technicality, which doesn't mean he's innocent, but that's not for them to decide. It's fairly shameful for them to think they overrule a court."

Article Source: http://depositarticles.com/

Antonia Torr is a graduate from the University of Leicester, with a degree in Law with European Union Law. Having enjoyed writing from a young age, Antonia has received numerous awards that act as a testament to her quality of writing. Top rated Compensation Claims Solicitors, please visit our website at www.qualitysolicitors.com

Please Rate this Article

Not yet Rated

Click the XML Icon Above to Receive Legal Articles Via RSS!

Additional Articles From - Home | Legal

Our other websites
All about SEO
Beauty Tips Forum

	Print This Article
	Post Comment
	Add To Favorites
	Email to Friends
	Ezine Ready

Submit Articles
Member Login
Link Us
Submission Guidelines
Ezine Notifications
Article RSS Feeds
Sitemap

New Stuff
About Us
Developer
Good shopping portal
Link to Us
Contact Us
Privacy Policy
Terms of Service