Compensation for a Miscarriage of Justice: Not Innocent Enough?

I wanted to write something about an issue that is causing me and many others concern regarding the paying of compensation to those who have suffered a miscarriage of justice. This is one of those subjects that seems to be reported in the media in a way that can be so easily misunderstood, certainly by me.

I couldn’t understand that if someone was freed on appeal, and therefore proven innocent, he or she could be deemed ‘not innocent enough’ to be granted compensation for having suffered a miscarriage of justice. Such a pronouncement by the State seemed quite odd to me.

How could one court hand down a judgement ‘that a person was innocent’ one week, and another court would then make the decision that they were not entitled to compensation the following week. It is drawing the conclusion that the individual who had been cleared was not sufficiently innocent to deserve compensation. The Judges appear to have gone quite mad by giving incomprehensible and seemingly incongruous rulings in such cases. Often the reasons given by the Ministry of Justice are that no one else has been convicted of the crime that the person was wrongly convicted of or that the person cannot prove their innocence sufficiently. Surely being proven ‘not guilty’ means innocent? It does to any reasonable person, as it does to me, but it doesn’t mean that to the Ministry of Justice.

The compensation claims of Victor Nealon and Barry George are two important cases that spring to mind. There are no doubts that both of these men did not and could not have committed the crimes they were wrongly convicted of and both were rightly freed by the Court of Appeal. They were 100% innocent of the offences they had spent years in jail for and they should have been compensated by the State for having suffered so long in jail. The system got it wrong so the system should give them money to help make amends. Nevertheless both Nealon and George have previous convictions and have served terms of imprisonment for offences other than those they were wrongly convicted of.  This, it would appear, makes a difference to them receiving compensation, but should it?

Regardless of their previous convictions, I couldn’t understand how someone ‘could not be innocent enough,’ so I did some research to understand how this principle might be applied informally across all parts of the justice system.  I took a look at the rules of compensation more widely within the Ministry of Justice guidelines. There are clear and concise rules about giving compensation to anyone with previous convictions where they have served a term of imprisonment.

The current position with regard to compensation for a miscarriage of justice, would appear to have its roots in a change of the rules that took place about fifteen years ago regarding how the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board (C.I.C.B) paid out compensation. This organisation was set up in 1964 to oversee and regularize payments to all victims of crime where they had suffered personal injury or some loss or hardship. For instance, if a citizen had their arm broken during a robbery they would receive a set amount of money from the C.I.C.B.

This led to The Ministry of Justice being heavily criticized in the media because prisoners were also able to receive pay-outs for injuries inflicted upon them whilst they were serving a term of imprisonment. An example might be where someone could have been attacked and injured by another prisoner, they would have received an automatic pay out from the Criminal Injuries Compensation. The media was outraged that criminals should be given money in the same way that members of the public were given money for their injuries. The knee jerk reaction by the State to this media frenzy was to rule that there would be no more compensation for any injuries suffered by a serving prisoner who had been a victim of a crime whilst serving a term of imprisonment .[1]

“3. An award will not be made to an applicant who on the date of their application has a conviction for an offence which resulted in: (a) a sentence excluded from rehabilitation; (b) a custodial sentence; (c) a sentence of service detention; (d) removal from Her Majesty’s service; (e) a community order; (f) a youth rehabilitation order; or (g) a sentence equivalent to a sentence under sub-paragraphs (a) to (f) imposed under the law of Northern Ireland or a member State of the European Union, or such a sentence properly imposed in a country outside the European Union.”

I know this because in May 2004, a prisoner attacked me attempting to slash my throat in an unprovoked and random attack. I needed twenty-eight stitches to sew up the wound in the back and side of my neck. The C.I.C.B. refused my application for compensation, in effect stating that it was my own fault for being in jail with violent prisoners. As I was serving a term of imprisonment I was barred from receiving compensation for the injury I sustained. The fact that I shouldn’t have been in prison in the first place was ignored by the CICB. The media were happy that prisoners were barred from compensation and the public seemingly satisfied that prisoners deserved to be scalded, slashed, stabbed and harmed because they were in prison, with their attitude being it’s their fault they are in there so it’s right that they  won’t be given any compensation from the C.I.C.B. I believe this to be wrong. A prisoner who suffers a loss because of another’s criminal act should be properly compensated.

Going back to the issue of compensation for miscarriages of justice, I am speculating that the Ministry of Justice has simply and informally harmonized their rules regarding compensation for prisoners and ex-prisoners. So by analogy, the State would appear to have decided that anyone who has served a term of imprisonment should be barred from receiving compensation for a miscarriage of justice. This might explain how it is that the State has evaded paying out compensation to these latest miscarriages of justice cases.  It suggests to me that what the police and prosecuting authorities have done in pursuing someone for a certain crime was justified because they had already been convicted of a crime before. It would appear to be the case that the statutory compensation system for criminal injuries and for miscarriages of justice are now administered using the same rules. If you have served a term of imprisonment then statutory compensation for a miscarriage of justice is not automatic. It is not barred completely but any claim has to be justified.  Analogously then, both Victor Nealon and Barry George were unable to justify compensation for their miscarriage of justice because of their previous convictions.

To be labelled ‘not innocent enough’ when being denied compensation for a miscarriage of justice is, it would seem, the way the courts justify these wrongful imprisonments. Not paying compensation for a miscarriage of justice is a human rights issue but sadly the media appear to demonize people previously convicted of crime who in their eyes deserve little sympathy even when released from wrongful imprisonment.

I know there will always be hard cases that cause concern where someone with a previous conviction is given compensation for an overturned conviction, but in the cases of Barry George and Victor Nealon they should be compensated for the miscarriage of justice they suffered, just as any victims of crime should be compensated for any loss they suffered.  

Just because a person is in prison, or has served a term of imprisonment, it should not mean they are forever marginalised and excluded from any benefits available to the rest of society. A conviction should not automatically demonise that person for life so that, in effect, their punishment is never ending. A miscarriage of justice is wrong, and compensation should always be paid by the State when it caused the wrongful conviction by prosecuting a person when they should not have done.

Jeremy

---

[1] Ministry of Justice. The Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2012 (See link) at Page 41.

Jeremy Bamber on The Human Rights Act.

I am beyond shocked by David Cameron’s pledge to scrap the Human Rights Act if he becomes Prime Minister at the next election.  The United Kingdom was one of the first countries to give formal consent to the European Convention of Human Rights in 1951, when it was passed through Parliament, championed by Sir Winston Churchill.

We live in a democracy that is loosely based on utilitarianism, i.e. the belief that the greatest happiness of the greatest number of people should be the guiding principle of those that rule us.

I know certain cases ruled upon by the European Court of Human Rights have upset many people because they seem overtly wrong. For instance, the idea that prisoners can vote.

The media seem to think that once a person goes to jail that they should never be permitted to be a citizen again upon their release. Yet more than half of all those currently in jail will be free within five years. Why, upon their release, should they not have a voice with which to speak with a Member of Parliament? If they should be permitted to talk with an MP, then why shouldn’t they have a right to choose whom that MP might be. Simply missing the election because of being in Jail shouldn’t prevent them choosing their MP.

Being holier than thou over this appears irrationally prejudicial. But I do agree other odd cases that have won in the ECHR need to be vetoed in some way. Nevertheless, to do away with human rights could certainly have an impact on the liberties we currently enjoy, without even being aware of it. I wanted to go through the Acts with some discussion on how these Articles might impact our lives if they are taken away and not replaced with a closely fitting alternative under the Tories proposed, “British Bill of Rights.”

Article 1: Respecting Rights:

This is the agreement by the Signatory Countries that they will secure the rights of their citizens as stated in the following Articles within their jurisdiction.

Article 2: Right to Life

The Right to Life will disappear. At the moment everyone’s right to life is protected by law. When this is not in place the State can exterminate its citizens if it so chooses as Pinochet did. On September 11^th in 1973 General Pinochet seized power of Chile in a bloody military coup. In almost two decades of his dictatorship he became notorious for his abuse of Human Rights. Under his rule, more than 3,200 people are known to have disappeared or been executed, with thousands of others being detained, tortured or exiled. Article 2 prevents human rights abuses on this scale happening in Europe.

Article 3: Prohibition of Torture.

No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

The media often reports on alleged British involvement or complicity in torture and rendition sometimes conducted by the USA.  In 2012 a criminal investigation into M16 officers involvement of torturing Libyan dissidents, under Tony Blair’s leadership, was carried out. More recently, in the wake of the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center, the US Senate has produced a report on torture of suspected terrorists. Malcolm Rifkind has requested access to redacted passages of the report, which might detail the UK’s part in breaking Article 3 of the Human Rights Act. More commonly, in countries outside of Europe, appalling acts of torture still happen. The UK has always prided itself on having the highest standards of human rights. I’m afraid all this would slide without Article 3 in its current form, and incidents of the UK becoming involved in torture would become more frequent. 

Between 1971 and 1975 the authorities in Northern Ireland exercised a series of extrajudicial Powers of Arrest, detention and internment of terrorist suspects.    Arrests and convictions during this time included The Guildford Four, Maguire Seven and the Birmingham Six, all later proven to have been wrongly convicted.  Although the claims of torture and police brutality they endured were not brought before the European Court of Human Rights, many more were, including the ‘Hooded Men Case’, where it was found that five interrogation techniques were used on suspects. This included forcing detainees to remain standing ‘spread eagled’ in stress positions for hours on end, putting hoods over their heads, subjecting them to loud continuous noise and deprivation of food, drink and sleep. The European Court of Human Rights held that these techniques caused, if not actual bodily injury, at least intense physical and mental suffering, and were humiliating and degrading.  As such, the UK was held to be in breach of Article 3 by allowing its security forces to use such techniques.

Article 4: Prohibition of Slavery and Forced Labour.

 Abolition of this Human Rights Law would mean the State could force those they wanted to work for nothing. Everyone knows slavery is wrong, but abolish human rights and what’s in place to prevent the State enslaving a section of its citizens to work for nothing should it so choose?  Modern day slavery takes many forms and occurs in many more countries than you could imagine. The victims are the most vulnerable in society, women and children forced into prostitution, migrants trapped in debt bondage, and sweatshop or farm workers, usually foreign nationals, who are paid little or nothing. This does not just happen in third world countries but also here in the UK. Without the protection of Article 4 it’s worrying to imagine how the money hungry could exploit British Citizens even more in this way.

Article 5: The Right to Liberty and Security.

This means the State shall be forced to justify depriving a citizen of their liberty and entitling citizens to take proceedings against the State by which the lawfulness of his or her detention shall be speedily decided. Without Article 5, the police could arrest and detain a suspect for however long they choose.  This Article also ensures that if you were to be arrested, the charges against you would be explained promptly in a language you understood, and a trial held within a reasonable period of time.

This Article also protects the rights of people in hospital, and in care homes, particularly people who have mental health problems.

Article 6: The Right to a Fair Trial.

The State already wants to do away with juries in some cases. It also allows certain evidence to be concealed from a defendant using Public Interest Immunity (PII). This is acceptable if it is used correctly, but if the police/lawyers choose to abuse PII without article 6, the fairness of a trial would undoubtedly be lost. 

Article 7: No Punishment without Law.

This seems an obvious thing, but without human rights, the State could simply punish a citizen if it wanted to, without them having broken any laws. For example, because he or she is part of a minority group. UK Human Rights Laws have already been eaten away by terrorism bills, so that suspects can be held in prison or under house arrest for many years without charge, or knowing what the evidence against them is. This erosion to civil liberty is already having an effect on our society and without Article 7 it will get worse.

Article 8: The Right to Respect for Private and Family Life.

David Cameron often speaks about his love of family life, but without Article 8 the State could choose to interfere with a citizen’s family unit. Either someone British born or an immigrant could be affected, for example, if as a family unit it might not fit with the States ideals. Without this Act in place, prisoners could be denied the right to have contact with their families. The impact of this on the children and relatives of those in prison would be huge, not to mention hindering the rehabilitation of prisoners. Currently, prisoners are denied photographs with their family. The prospect of a child growing up without photographs of its father or mother could result in unimaginable upset to the child and subsequently cause untold damage to that child’s sense of identity.

Article 8 also covers areas such as respect for your sexuality; the right to make choices for yourself; respect for private and confidential information; the right not to be followed or recorded by the Government; the right to have confidential, unlimited communication with others; and the right to control how information about your private life is shared. These are all vital and basic rights that everyone should have.

Article 9 Freedom of Thought, Conscience and Religion.

Without human rights the State may choose to punish people whose thoughts and beliefs they don’t agree with. Citizens might no longer be allowed to choose how they behave based upon their conscience. For instance, being a vegetarian could be banned by the State. Furthermore, the State could abolish certain religions and force its citizens to practice a religion that it has chosen. The Spanish Inquisition shows how things can go so terribly wrong. The Spanish Inquisition held some parallels to Nazi rule. It was a group within the Roman Catholic Church, which tried to suppress heresy. Baptized members of the Church who held opinions contrary to the Catholic faith were systematically tortured and executed, simply for following a different religion.

Article 10. Freedom of Expression

The media should beware. No human rights, and citizens can’t speak about what they choose; therefore the press can be completely controlled. Freedom of Speech allows us to voice our opinions, no matter how strong, verbally or in writing. We can use social media to express ourselves, such as Twitter, Facebook, via E-mails or through public speaking, to name a few. Fortunately there is a limit on this, and freedom of expression does not, allow you knowingly to reveal information given to you in confidence, nor can you say anything that would threaten public safety, national security, or undermine the legal system. This means however strongly you feel on an issue, you cannot for example, encourage people to commit crime, incite a riot or display expressions of racial or religious hatred.

Article 11. Freedom of Assembly and Association.

Without our human rights there will be no right to march against the issues people believe in and no gathering together of like-minded people. If the State doesn’t like it, then if it chooses, without human rights, the state will prevent it from happening. Earlier this year, thousands of Solicitors and probation workers staged numerous walkouts and marches in protest at the Government’s decision to cut £215 million out of the annual criminal legal aid budget, cuts that would affect every UK citizen. These people protested under the Freedom of Assembly and Association Law.

Article 12. Right to Marry.

It seems such a basic human right, but without it, the State may choose to stop any type of marriage. For example, it could prevent UK Citizens from marrying those from other countries.

Article 13: Right to Effective Remedy.

At the moment, the State is held accountable, and there’s always a method by which citizens can seek remedy if the State gets it wrong or fails its citizens. There may be certain things done by the State that are above the law. Perhaps medical negligence, for instance, the NHS might become exempt from official scrutiny. In the UK, people who have had their convictions overturned are seldom entitled to compensation. They’re innocent enough to be released but not innocent enough to be compensated by the State.

Particularly shocking are cases where there’s police misconduct but no compensation is offered.

Another example might be that if a prison officer damaged the personal property of a prisoner but there is now no recourse for the prisoner. This might be okay with some people, but the same applies on the outside. If the police damaged your property for whatever reason, maybe they crashed through a water feature in your garden while doing a car chase, there would be no way you could recoup compensation.

Article 14: Prohibition of Discrimination.

All our rights and freedoms contained within the Human Rights Act must be protected and applied with no discrimination. This simply means that the Human Rights Act is there for everyone, irrelevant of age, sex, race, colour, language, religion or sexual orientation.

Articles 15, 16, 17 and 18:

Derogation in Time of Emergency; Restrictions on Political Activity by Foreigners; Prohibitions on Abuse of Right and Limitation on use of Restrictions on Rights. These four rights set out when and why certain human rights can be modified or set aside, such as when a country is at war, or during such times that emergency situations threaten the lives of the nation.

David Cameron thinks it’s a vote winner to tell British Citizens that they no longer have these rights. Maybe you agree with him, but at least if you’ve read this you will have had the opportunity to think about it a little more. Human rights are often essential to the most vulnerable members of our society or those who are in minority groups. From my perspective, I often see and feel how extremely vulnerable prisoners can be, and more so recently without Legal Aid to help them fight injustice.

Important thoughts for us all this New Year.

Jeremy.

Content Research for Jeremy Bamber by Yvonne Hartley.

Developmental edits by Sarah Hanover. Proof reading by Heidi Hawkins.

"There is no legal aid to fund anyone fighting a miscarriage of Justice"

Regards today’s article in the Daily Mirror about Jeremy receiving legal aid. This the figures were published by the Legal Aid board. These claims for legal aid were for Jeremy Bamber to fight his case in the High Court. The Mirror and Express just made up what the money was actually used for and invented 13 parole hearings and money to fight non-disclosure of documents. The article was highly misleading and predudicial and bundled Bamber in with people who have admitted to the crimes they are convicted of.

To fight his whole life tariff in the European Court of Human Rights for example Jeremy has received less than a thousand pounds that is a fact. It is Jeremy's human right to fight a whole life tariff illegally imposed by the Home Secretary for a crime he didn’t commit. Ironically, all of Jeremy’s Freedom of Information requests for original handwritten documentation from the scene have been turned down by Essex Police.

As a campaign we would like to make clear that there is no legal aid available to fund anyone fighting a miscarriage of justice until there is a referral to the court of appeal, this means years of fighting to get to the court of appeal with no funding at all. So, currently there is no money for legal costs. This involves finding a lawyer who will work pro-bono, finding forensic scientists who will work pro-bono, finding a QC who will work pro-bono. Many of these people give their time for nothing, they don’t even get their travel costs paid. Let’s also not forget that forensic scientists, Lawyers and QC’s often charge hundreds of pounds per hour so where those wrongly imprisoned are expected to find the money to pay for this is beyond comprehension. The chances of the CCRC making a referral to the courts without forensic evidence and sumissions from a lawyer are slim.

There is also no money to transport documents, to store documents, to make electronic files of documents. No money to build web sites, to pay for leaflets or make videos. No money for campaigners who give their time free of charge. There was no funding available for a lie detector test for Jeremy to take which he passed. Everyone who works for Jeremy towards his freedom gives their time Free Of Charge. The Daily Express also reported that Jeremy Bamber has had 13 parole hearings, how is this possible as Jeremy is on a life means life tariff, he NEVER COMES UP FOR PAROLE.

The Mirror and Express didn't take into consideration that there are no funds for fighting a miscarriage of justice and that our justice system is full proof. There are many innocent people inside our prisons today, and perhaps the journalists publishing these articles wont ever have to face a life sentence for something they didn't do.

Perhaps the Mirror and Express would like to print an article to include the fact that public money is being used to keep an innocent man in prison, and Jeremy Bamber is not the only innocent who is behind bars needlessly. If the justice system didn’t constantly sweep evidence under the carpet then there would be no costs incurred the first instance. It is ultimately public money which will pay Jeremy compensation for wasting over half his life, but the Mirror and Express didn’t consider this fact: No amount of money will bring back the 26 years of Jeremy Bamber’s life which has been taken from him unlawfully.

30th Anniversary of the Tragedies

By Michael O'Brien

I met Jeremy in Long Lartin prison between 1989 -1996 and it was so obvious that he did not fit in to prison life. He stood out for me, and he seemed lost just like I once was when I first went to prison.  I knew something was not right with his case and believed in his Innocence from the start. It was a gut feeling I had about him and Jeremy was different to the other prisoners. The case was the most important thing to him, and proving his innocence was the main thing on his mind just like it was with me. They say you can spot an innocent man a mile off and they stick out like a sore thumb—Jeremy was certainly in that category.

Wrongful convictions have a habit of leaving the innocent suffering from Post-traumatic stress disorder and they may not even know they are suffering from it. I thought I was ok however experts soon found out that I was far from ok. Being in prison for a crime you didn’t commit leaves many scars and it can only be described like a roller coaster ride. One minute you are angry and you feel you can fight whatever obstacles are placed in your way, and the next you are in total despair. Depression seeps into your mind overwhelming you. The only thing I had on my mind 24 hours a day was to fight the injustice and I lived and breathed the case just like Jeremy is doing now.

I do not know whether I would have had the strength that Jeremy has got if I had still been in prison for almost 30 years like he has. However, one thing I do know is that I would have fought as hard as I could to obtain justice in the same way as Jeremy has done, and he has to continue fighting until he has been proved innocent because that is exactly what he is.

When I found out I was going to be released, I had a lot of anxiety not knowing what to expect in the outside world and this was after eleven years. Looking at it from Jeremy’s perspective it would be quite frightening with the way society and the outside world has changed in the 30 years he has been incarcerated. Fear of the unknown and not knowing how he will adjust back into society can also be a daunting thought. I felt this too, and also wondering what reception you are going to get from the general public. These are just some of the things, which will be going through Jeremys mind.

We must not lose sight of the fact due to the injustice that has been laid on Jeremy, he has suffered further by losing his family: Nevill, June, Sheila, Nicolas and Daniel. He has not been able to grieve for the loss of his family, as he should have been able to do.

My thoughts are with Jeremy’s family who lost their lives in tragic circumstances and also with Jeremy who not only lost his family but also his freedom, which has been stolen from him. I believe a miscarriage of Justice does not lay doormat, Jeremy’s case is going to rise up and haunt all those who have taken part in this injustice and the truth will come out.

Michael O’Brien: Author and Motivational Speaker

Michael O’Brien was imprisoned for eleven years for a crime he didn’t commit—the Cardiff Newsagent Murder. In his book he revealed all about the police incompetence and scapegoating, which landed him, an innocent man in prison. It also tells of his tooth and nail fight through the highest courts, not only to get himself free, but to gain the highest compensation pay out of its kind.

While in prison Michael lost not only his freedom but everything he’d ever had, including his wife, his child and even his health. It has taken him years to rebuild his life. But he did gain something from his time inside: a self-taught knowledge of Law, and a burning desire to help others fight for justice.

On his release he joined forces with another victim of miscarried justice, Paddy Joe Hill, a member of the Birmingham Six. They set up MOJO (The Miscarriages of Justice Organization) to help others who were wrongfully imprisoned. Michael recently spoke to James Whale on BBC Radio Essex about Jeremy's innocence. Listen Here.

Michael and his family have set up the Dylan O’Brien foundation in memory of his son who died of an undiagnosed metabolic condition on June 15^th 2012. The charity raises awareness and provides support for children with metabolic genetic diseases.

Michael is the author of two books available on the following links:-

Download our e-book of the evidence on our web site.