The apalling case of Sion Jenkins' imprisonment for six years brings to light the ridiculous situation facing those who have had their lives wrecked by the state's incompetence – and are then refused justifiable compensation.

 

 

Why is this idea important?

At present, the home office's position is that compensation is only paid "Where it is clear that the victim is innocent" (!!!)

Yet the law says clearly that a defendent is innocent until proved guilty. If they are subsequently not proved to be guilty, it follows that they must be innocent!

Refusing to pay compensation is not only unjust; the financial loss of earnings and almost certain loss of posessions during the victim's time in jail is then compunded by the apparent slur that they are still guilty – it's just that the state hasn't yet managed to prove it!

This ridiculous contradiction in the application of the law must be addressed: it is the ultimate civil liberty issue.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.