Miscarriage of Justice & Compensation

#1
I have always been under the impression that if you were incorrectly jailed for a crime that you didn't commit, you would be handsomely compensated for the Crown's mistake.

In the eyes of the law Barry George is not guilty of Jill Dando's murder. However he has now lost his bid for compensation.

BBC News - Barry George loses Jill Dando compensation bid ruling

So it is ok for this country to lock someone up for 8 years and for their reputation to be destroyed, and the country just has to say 'whoops, sorry about that'?

I'd expect to be supplied with hot and cold running Lamborghini's if I had lost 8 years of my life to a MoJ cockup.



Not that I think he is innocent, but in the 'eyes of the law' he is.





n.b. No, I have not caught BounceBanana Loony Syndrome, I just stumbled across this story whilst looking for pics of boobies.
 
#3
From the BBC report

In January, the High Court had ruled that Mr George did not qualify for compensation because jurors could still reasonably have convicted him despite new evidence that led to his acquittal.
Legal eagle I ain't but does this statement not suggest that only the appeal judges understood the evidence which acquitted?

One would presume the Birmingham 6 and Guildford mob would have been reasonably convicted by a jury then later cleared. Bet they got a handout.

Mr George's face did not fit he made monkeys out of the Met, therefore he has to pay.

I lived a couple of streets away from Dando at the time of the Murder in Fulham and followed the case closely. I could see early on he was being stitched up by detectives who given the pressure they were under were desperate for a result.

Sure he was an odd ball but take away the once piece of evidence which tied him in which was the firearms residue on his coat and he was one oddball amongst a London full or them. Is was the discrediting of how this residue found it's way onto his coat which led to the aquittal.

Dando was topped by some Yugo gansgter mob out to prove themselves, maybe maybe not as a result of something she did in her work with the BBC. Professional hit straight in and straight out, unless someone talks from inside that organisation they will never know who did it.

George was/is special needs, he never had the wherewithal to make the hit in the professional manner it was carried out.
 
#4
Another story has emerged suggesting George was 'fitted up'..

Jill Dando was shot dead by olive-skinned assassin, says eyewitness | Mail Online

A grandfather who saw Jill Dando moments before she was shot dead claims police ignored his evidence about the murder.


Barry Lindsey said Miss Dando, 37, was confronted by her 'Mediterranean' killer on her doorstep in 1999 seconds before she was killed.


Mr Lindsey, now 61, told detectives to search for an olive-skinned man - but he claims they were only interested in evidence linking Barry George to the murder.
 
#6
I have always been under the impression that if you were incorrectly jailed for a crime that you didn't commit, you would be handsomely compensated for the Crown's mistake..................................
As I read it, he had a trial and was found guilty, later to be acquitted on appeal.
It wasn't a mistake of the courts, more (allegedly) "bad" police work.
I would think that Mr George's case should be against the police who "stitched him up" (allegedly).
 
#7
You know when people want a death penalty as nothing can go wrong these days.
I'm pro death penalty for where the evidence is incontrovertible, which it certainly wasn't in this case.

IMO BG was fitted up because he was easy & the Met were being pressured & desperate for a result.
 
#8
He's either guilty or he's not. If he is then he needs to be in prison. If he isn't, then he needs mega compensation for 8 years in prison. There should be no middle ground.


Posted from the ARRSE Mobile app (iOS or Android)
 
#9
He's either guilty or he's not. If he is then he needs to be in prison. If he isn't, then he needs mega compensation for 8 years in prison. There should be no middle ground.
Anything else is going down the 'Li'l Bill Daggett' route of justice: "Innocent? Innocent of what?"
 
#10
I'm pro death penalty for where the evidence is incontrovertible, which it certainly wasn't in this case.

IMO BG was fitted up because he was easy & the Met were being pressured & desperate for a result.
Given the advances in DNA technology there are now going to be some crimes where there can be absolutely no doubt who has committed the act.

They could give the decision to the jury who has heard all the evidence and have returned the guilty verdict. But would many juries still condemn in this fashion?

Then on the other hand what do you do with those who plead guilty in the hope of gaining clemency?
 
#11
Weird. Not an Angel, but innocent of killing Dando?

This from 2011:

The claim was heard in the High Court; however in their summing up, judges Lord Justice Beatson and Mr Justice Irwin said: "There was indeed a case upon which a reasonable jury properly directed could have convicted the claimant of murder", and on the strength of this, denied George compensation for wrongful incarceration.[SUP][29][/SUP]

So, is it "We know you did it but cant prove it therefore no cash?" Surely this is also a MoJ?

Barry George - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
B

Biscuits_AB

Guest
#12
I'm pro death penalty for where the evidence is incontrovertible, which it certainly wasn't in this case.

IMO BG was fitted up because he was easy & the Met were being pressured & desperate for a result.
And he'd have hung for it. Your first line doesn't take into account that he was found guilty of murder on the evidence presented to the court. The evidence which negated the firearms residue issue came later. He'd have been long dead by then.
 
#13
And he'd have hung for it. Your first line doesn't take into account that he was found guilty of murder on the evidence presented to the court. The evidence which negated the firearms residue issue came later. He'd have been long dead by then.
No.
Had I been a juror, the single microscopic grain of propellant residue would assuredly NOT have convinced me of his guilt & without that, the rest was circumstantial & therefore a long way from incontrovertible.
 
#14
You would have been one juror of twelve. So you'd have been of significance for 2hrs and 10 mins at which point the Judge will have accepted a majority verdict of upto 10-2.
 
#15
Dando was topped by some Yugo gansgter mob out to prove themselves, maybe maybe not as a result of something she did in her work with the BBC.
In the '90s, the Serbs were being blamed for everything and anything by the media on the nod from government puppeteers. Given that 'we' were bombing them at the time, it really was no suprise that the media managed to come up with the speculatory link that same nasty Serbian warlord ordered the hit.

Professional hit straight in and straight out, unless someone talks from inside that organisation they will never know who did it.
Which would have already happened if a Serbian criminal gang were behind it. They do like to brag, you know.
 
#16
I have always been under the impression that if you were incorrectly jailed for a crime that you didn't commit, you would be handsomely compensated for the Crown's mistake.

In the eyes of the law Barry George is not guilty of Jill Dando's murder. However he has now lost his bid for compensation.

BBC News - Barry George loses Jill Dando compensation bid ruling

So it is ok for this country to lock someone up for 8 years and for their reputation to be destroyed, and the country just has to say 'whoops, sorry about that'?

I'd expect to be supplied with hot and cold running Lamborghini's if I had lost 8 years of my life to a MoJ cockup.
The whole case stinks of lots of evidence pointing to George but, due to police gathering cockups and tricky lawyers, that evidence not being permitted in court. Ie, we know you did it, we can prove you did it, but the police screwed the pooch with their enthusiasm so we cannot tell the world what it is.
 
#17
The whole case stinks of lots of evidence pointing to George but, due to police gathering cockups and tricky lawyers, that evidence not being permitted in court. Ie, we know you did it, we can prove you did it, but the police screwed the pooch with their enthusiasm so we cannot tell the world what it is.
In a nutshell, Correct.
 
#18
Given the advances in DNA technology there are now going to be some crimes where there can be absolutely no doubt who has committed the act.

They could give the decision to the jury who has heard all the evidence and have returned the guilty verdict. But would many juries still condemn in this fashion?

Then on the other hand what do you do with those who plead guilty in the hope of gaining clemency?
Oh dear. I suppose it may be something to do with the surname George ?

5.The Tweeting Policemanand The Hilda Murrell Murder | ikidu0

But Hilda's nephew Commander Green RN Intelligence Retd doesn't believe the conviction is safe.
 
#19
I have always been under the impression that if you were incorrectly jailed for a crime that you didn't commit, you would be handsomely compensated for the Crown's mistake.

In the eyes of the law Barry George is not guilty of Jill Dando's murder. However he has now lost his bid for compensation.

BBC News - Barry George loses Jill Dando compensation bid ruling

So it is ok for this country to lock someone up for 8 years and for their reputation to be destroyed, and the country just has to say 'whoops, sorry about that'?

I'd expect to be supplied with hot and cold running Lamborghini's if I had lost 8 years of my life to a MoJ cockup.



Not that I think he is innocent, but in the 'eyes of the law' he is.





n.b. No, I have not caught BounceBanana Loony Syndrome, I just stumbled across this story whilst looking for pics of boobies.
Barry George's or Jill Dando's tits?
 
#20
He's either guilty or he's not. If he is then he needs to be in prison. If he isn't, then he needs mega compensation for 8 years in prison. There should be no middle ground.


Posted from the ARRSE Mobile app (iOS or Android)
Baroness Hale, said: ‘Innocence as such is not a concept known to our criminal justice system. ‘We distinguish between the guilty and the not guilty. ‘A person is only guilty if the state can prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt… if it can be conclusively shown that the state was not entitled to punish a person, it seems to me that he should be entitled to compensation for having been punished. ‘He does not have to prove his innocence at his trial and it seems wrong in principle that he should be required to prove his innocence now.’
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top