http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10922487

Sion Jenkins. Now free because two appeal juries could not be sure. A bit like the "Not Proven" verdict in Scotland perhaps.

So a civil servant decides if he is guilty or not and refuses compensation. Shouldn't the Judge make a ruling?

I don't know if he was guilty or not but then I thought George was guilty in the Dando case but he wasn't. And that chap done for Rachel Nicholle's murder. I always had my doubts about the Guildford Four as to whether they really were innocent.

Odd though?

dl

Guilty until proven innocent - that's about right these days for white, middle-aged, heterosexual males surely

If they have tried that hard to convict him and can't do so, then in law surely he is not guilty. There can't be a halfway house. They cannot say he might be guilty if they can't prove it.

He should be treated as not guilty with whatever he is entitled to for his time in gaol.

Les

"He also said he "lost the childhood of his daughters" who had emigrated to Tasmania with his former wife and her new partner following the original conviction."

Would seem to suggest that the people who know him best want to be as far away as possible.Interesting.

At the risk of being on the wrong end of a libel action, IMNSHO he is guilty as charged. He's just been able to employ some good lawyers who have muddied the waters enough to prevent the jury reaching a verdict. He's a serial liar; there's evidence he hit the girl before; they were known to fight; he concocted the world's clumsiest alibi; he "found" the body; the "blood bubble" argument should never have been allowed at appeal as it was introduced in the original trial (and thoroughly discredited at the time, with the expert who brought it in admitting the phenomenon had never been observed and was far-fetched). He's got away with murder: what else does he want?


M

I should think there is a 99% chance you are right. But that is why I suggested that the appeal Judge should make a ruling - that he is free but would not be entitled to any compensation - as he best placed to do this?

Sometimes you get the cops saying "We are not looking for anyone else in connection with this crime".

dl

According to our laws, if you are not found guilty, then you are innocent. There is no halfway situation.

They have to find enough evidence to convict him for certain and they have said that they are continuing to try to do that.

Making "informed" guesses is just not good enough in law.

Les

Technically though he hasn't been found not guilty -otherwise double jeopardy would apply and he counldn't be tried for the same crime twice.

So far the jury has failed to reach a verdict which is different. They haven't cleared him at all. Police etc believe he is the man that did it and as they said compensation is paid to "those who are clearly innocent" he is far from that. If I were him I'd shut up and clear off sharpish.

5t.

are we not confusing two separate matters here.

He was not found guilty of a crime, be that through good counsel or whatever reason.
He was unable to be in custody for this reason.

However, we are now onto the cashing in aspect.
He was not then subsequently found innocent of his crime, therefore compo is not payable.



The situation will sit uneasy for the 'uman rights mob but I for one can see sense in the ruling.
One can only hope that this sort of moving away from a compo culture will continue under direction from the new coalition to prevent the national debt increasing substantially due to the chancers out there who play the system.

Following the second jury being unable to reach a verdict, the crown offered no evidence and the Judge therefore returned a not guilty verdict - so he has been declared not guilty. In any event, the double jeopardy rule has gone and notwithstanding the not guilty verdict, if new evidence came to light then he could be tried again.

But look at it this way, if you'd spent 6 years in prison for a crime which a court eventually declared that you were not guilty of, wouldn't you want some compensation for the loss of time??
(Please note I am playing devils advocate and this does not necessarily reflect my own personal views, which shall remain personal)

Joining the devil's advocate club.......

If you changed that sentiment to "if you'd spent 6 years in prison for a crime which you did not commit" you'd be really pissed off

As it happens I think he was guilty but my opinion is worth zilch. dl

DL, I was trying to make the same point as you I guess!! Legally he was locked up for 6 years for a crime he did not commit. Me, I don't know enough about the case to say one way or another, although given the amount of publicity this case got (both at the time of the original trial and subsequent trials) I think that it's very telling that neither jury had enough members to go either way and convict or acquit. In those circumstances he deserved to be acquitted.

The problem is too many people go by trial by media. I know from experience with my own cases that the press don't report the whole story....just what sells newspapers. I was involved in a murder trial a few years ago where a witness had given in evidence in chief what was a very damning account. However eventually, in cross examination, he admitted that his whole account was a lie. Guess which part the press printed?!

The fact is, when we have a burden of proof in the criminal system which has meant that a defendant has been acquitted of a crime, it should not be up to some suit sat in an office who has (probably) no legal experience or qualifications to decide things like this. I agree DL that it ought to be a matter for the judiciary.

He was declared by the court to be not guilty!

Les

Which obviously is not the same as saying that he didn't do it. In fact, was was found guilty. Then two retrials were unable to reach a verdict. At the risk of sounding frivolous about a man who has got away with murder, it looks like a tally of lost one, drew two.


M

The Scots have a cop out for this situation.............. "Not Proven". Deffo no compo if he had been tried north of the border..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_proven

Shaun

Surely if you are pronounced by the judge to be not guilty because the jury could not reach a verdict, then that is how you are viewed by the law, ie the evidence was not good enough to convict you.

That is the whole basis of British law. You have to be proved guilty so that 12 people on the jury are prepared to accept the evidence is good enough to convict you. If it is not, then you are not guilty as the judge pronounced. The rule of Habeus Corpus must then apply.

The last government wanted to dilute Habeus Corpus to nothing, it is one of the protections built into our law and must be maintained for our protection.

You should not be kept detained while the authorities say that they still think you might be guilty so they will put you in jug while they have another go at you later.

That is why the US built Guantanamo Bay concentration camp!

Les

Surely the decision was made on the balance of probabilities - i.e. as in a civil case, rather than that of a criminal case where guilt needs to be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

It is nothing to do with the criminal case as it involves payment of compensation which is a civil matter and as above follows a different set of rules - they clearly decided there was enough doubt not to pay.

More like a "whitewash" in order to wriggle out of it I reckon!

Les

Probably!

Least it's saved us all £0.00001 on our taxes though...

And, as I said, if anyone is going to make a decision on compensation then wouldn't it be better if the trial judge made it. After all he heard all the evidence and is best placed to do this.

He wouldn't necessarily have to do this at the actual trial but perhaps only if a compensation claim was made within a reasonable period, say 6 months, of the court verdict.

dl

Taking different attitudes to guilty or not as in this case is a dangerous path to go down. The positive belief that we have always had in this country is by far the safer way as far as the people in general are concerned.

Treating people as guilty or not by degrees like this case can lead to serious problems for us all in future times!

Les