Should Those Wrongly Convicted Of A Crime Pay For ‘Food And Lodging’?

[sp1814]

If so - why?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66324801

[New Judge]

Your question does not really give the true picture. Those wrongly convicted have their compensation calculated according to a number of factors. One of the things taken into account is the loss of earnings they endured whilst in prison. If this is to be a true reflection of that element, it is fair to say that they would have incurred living expenses had they not been in prison, which of course they did not whilst inside. So it seems fair that, when calculating that particular part of the compensation to be paid, a deduction should be made.

[Peter Pedant]

er havent we had this?

I recollect recollecting on AB that this has been done for at least 30y and apparently has got harder ( to prove you need compo).

2013 act makes it more difficult and not less to get these cases reviewed - another doubtless of the great British Liberties that Cameron was forwarding

[Peter Pedant]

NJ s comment makes perfect sense to lawyers
and virtually no one else

I think it is the coarsening action of working with so many men that end up in the slammer. ( no not the lawyers or politicians - ter daaah!)

[wolf63]

Speak for yourself PP => NJ's explanation is clear and concise

[Geoffrey13]

A spiteful piece of petty bureaucracy.

[lankeela]

Simple answer - take off an amount for b & l but up the compensation for the loss of his livelihood and freedom.

[sp1814]

NJ

That's still not fair. I've just looked it up and loss of earnings is capped at 1.5x the median UK, which is about £28k. A fairer assessment would be your salary entering prison, with a cost of living increase each year you're in jail.

If loss of earnings is taken into consideration (as well as food and lodgings), shouldn't it reflect individual circumstances rather than a median?

[New Judge]

//If loss of earnings is taken into consideration (as well as food and lodgings), shouldn't it reflect individual circumstances rather than a median?//

Yes, completely agree. If you were earning nothing when you went inside your compensation for LoEs should be nothing (adjusted for inflation). If you were earning £1m pa that should be the starting point.

It's just that the headline "..to pay for Food & Lodging" is a little misleading, IMHO.

[youngmafbog]

No, they should not pay.

The country should pick up the tab as part of the compensation for being wronged. Especially in lengthy cases like this and where the Police have been found to be more than wanting.

Whist I appreciate what you write NJ, I cannot agree it is 'right'.

[Zacs-Master]

I agree the OP headline is skewing the facts a little. But…

‘This was because of the living expenses they had not had to fund while in prison’

Must have been some Weasley pencil necked desk jockey who thought that one up.

[retrocop]

Well he certainly didn't go to prison by choice. Perhaps the CPS should shoulder the cost.

[sp1814]

I should point out that this story prompted the question, but it's a question in general - perhaps I should reword it as "should board and lodging be taken into consideration when calculating compensation awards for wrongful conviction / imprisonment".

NJ has given clarity but it still feels wrong. If you've been to prison, your life has basically been ruined through no fault of your own. It seems mean-spirited to weigh up the cost of keeping you in there and make a deduction for it.

[maggiebee]

No they should definitely not pay. They did not ask to be imprisoned, it is just bureaucracy gone mad. What about the hardship to their families left behind?

[Geoffrey13]

"Unjust bureaucracy" surely Maggie LOL

[Old_Geezer]

I think it a nonsense. We don't charge genuine criminals fof food and lodging. If the prison service feels out of pocket by having to retain an innocent person they should make a separate claim from the system. But the incremental cost of housing one more inmate probably doesn't come to much since most cost will be fixed overheads anyway.

As far as I know, paying the prison service for imprisoning one isn't a separately added amount to the compensation decided upon anyway, so ought not be paid from it.

[Buenchico]

With regard to NJ's suggested way of doing the sums:

Let's consider a hypothetical medical student who has always been the star performer in his year group and who everybody sees as extremely likely to reach consultant level in almost record time. However, just before taking his final exams, he's arrested for (and subsequently convicted of) an extremely serious offence (e.g. murder) that he didn't commit. He's in prison for 20 years before it's recognised that a miscarriage of justice has occurred and he's then released.

He will have lost several year's earnings as a junior doctor, several year's more as a registrar and perhaps a decade's earnings as a consultant. He'll come out of prison without his degree and, having no job experience in any field, will probably struggle to find any type of work (and certainly not any with anything like a consultant's salary), meaning that he'll continue to suffer loss of earnings until he retires. He'll then suffer further loss of income, through not having a consultant's pension, until the day he dies.

NJ would have the assessment of his loss of earnings assessed upon his income when he was arrested and brought before the courts which, as he was then a student, would be NIL.

I humbly suggest, M'lud, that such a way of doing things would clearly turn a justice system into an injustice system.

[Gromit]

It is bonkers.

// They don't charge guilty people, they only charge innocent people //

It is an insult.

[david small]

No they shouldn’t be charged for forcible detention. Ludicrous, petty, and a downright audacious bureaucracy.

[naomi24]

Definitely not. That’s adding insult to injury.