Wrongly jailed - but you have to pay your food and accom

Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by RABC, Mar 14, 2007.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. More than unfair, petty and vindictive is what it is.

    If as the report says this deduction is for living expenses and is set by the same people who set the level of "loss of earnings" which is the only reason they get any compensation at all apparently, why didn't they just set the compensation level at 25% less than they did in the first place?

    18 years in the nick for something you didn't do and the feckers make you pay for food and accom.

    I wonder if they will be after them for 18 years worth of income tax and council tax next?
     
  2. in_the_cheapseats

    in_the_cheapseats LE Moderator

    By my maths, it works out at £13750 and £7500 a year for being made to live in a jail respectively. I'd be wanting better service than they got for that money :thumright:

    I can't see a justification for it. It is a "service" that neither wanted and all in all, they are being charged for a Crown cock-up. Being charged for service not asked for is criminal, is it not?

    I hope these guys take it up to the next level. :threaten:
     
  3. Interesting story, beyond belief

    Someone's nose was put out of joint alright

    Are rightfully imprisoned people asked to pay as well?

    And what about asylum seekers?
     
  4. This is incredible. On the face of it, it seems ludicrous.

    There must be more to it, if the judges actually came to this bizarre decison. (Contrary to widely-held opinion, they are not all totally stupid.)
     
  5. Mr_Fingerz

    Mr_Fingerz LE Book Reviewer

    The next level is Europe - hugely time consuming and very expensive.

    The Law Lords normally know what they are doing, I suppose that we'll just have to wait for the judgements to be published in full.
     
  6. makes you wonder if they were "genuinely innocent", or "got off on appeal on a new technicality but bang-on guilty". in which case i don't mind money being recouped from murderers - crack on.


    not followed the case so i don't know. but it's certainly an odd decision.
     
  7. I doubt that the Law Lords even looked at that. By ruling that they are liable for "Board and Lodgings", the Law Lords have created a precedent that will be binding on all lower courts in similar cases in the future.

    PB
     
  8. PassingBells writes : "I doubt that the Law Lords even looked at that. By ruling that they are liable for "Board and Lodgings", the Law Lords have created a precedent that will be binding on all lower courts in similar cases in the future."

    That creation of a binding precedent makes it doubly worrying, and all the more extraordinary. But it's no use just speculating - to get the facts I suppose we'll have to read the judgement(s). Hey-ho!
     
  9. That's an awful lot of money to pay back, not far off what you would pay to live in a decent hotel, surely? I know they say that prison is cushy but come on.....