A Tad Harsh

[Speckled Frost]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/4163705.stm

 

It seems Angela Canning will get no compensation for having a couple of years of her life taken away from her.

 

And considering the family had to sell their home to pay the legal feels, I think some cash would really have helped.

 

I guess they don't want a precedent set for the other 250-odd cases being looked at.

[Rog]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/4163705.stm

 

It seems Angela Canning will get no compensation for having a couple of years of her life taken away from her.

 

And considering the family had to sell their home to pay the legal feels, I think some cash would really have helped.

 

I guess they don't want a precedent set for the other 250-odd cases being looked at.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Harsh? It's effin disgusting. Can you just IMAGINE the outcry if it were a Conservative Government in office and Bleah in opposition? They would go ape-poo.

[hollandaise]

That poor cow. To be given no compensation, after that! And Saltash is an extremely poor area of Cornwall, I used to live near there. Old slag heaps, run-down council housing, industrial estate, always seems to be grey and rainy.

 

I have five kids so I know what it's like to check the cot half a dozen times during the night or whenever they're ill. I've been lucky. But I can only begin to imagine what it must be like to have your worst fears realised ...TWICE! ... and then to be arrested and appear in court and spend 18 months in prison as a child murderer.

 

She must be some kind of amazing survivor, that's all I can say.

[happy camper]

Five kids? Wow!

I didn't know people still did that.

[ian rush]

I think the key difference between her case and those of the Guildford 4, Bridgewater 3 and Birmingham 6 - where compensation was paid - is that the reason for the successful appeals was that the police had fabricated the evidence and / or extorted confessions whereas in this case, a misguided medical expert opinon was the basis for her conviction.

 

Her case is thus being treated like all other successful appeals (whether on the grounds of the "technicalities" / "human rights" / " soft judges" that those that hate lawyers like to bleat about or in the case of legitimate evidential doubts) where there has been no 'corruption' on the part of the police and or prosecuting authorities for which the state is responsible.

 

A final thought: isn't it a good job we haven't brought back hanging....

[hollandaise]

Camper, I'd have a dozen kids if my body and my husband's wallet could handle it.

 

And Ian Rush, absolutely. An excellent reason for the abolition of capital punishment. But these 'technicalities' - i.e. loopholes - should be overhauled by the Law Lords. This woman deserves compensation. Who asked that 'expert' to appear if it wasn't the Crown Prosecution Service? Someone must be at fault here if evidence of any kind is relied upon for a conviction and is later found to be false.

[ian rush]

But these 'technicalities' - i.e. loopholes - should be overhauled by the Law Lords. This woman deserves compensation. Who asked that 'expert' to appear if it wasn't the Crown Prosecution Service? Someone must be at fault here if evidence of any kind is relied upon for a conviction and is later found to be false.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The judiciary doesn't legislate. They can't change the law in same way as Tynwald or the Houses of Parliament can, they can only interpret the law and apply it.

 

I disagree that anyone at the CPS is at fault. Scientific views change and witnesses can later be discredited as research evolves. If the expert witness gave evidence under a duty to the Court - and bear in mind also that every expert who does give evidence in a sphere such as this is potentially putting their career on the line - and that evidence is later discredited, the fact that a jury (i.e twelve people off the street) convicted her on the basis of the evidence is not basis for compensation.

 

I'm sure if a burglar had a conviction overturned (or if you prefer 'got off') on discredited ID evidence or a failure to comply with the correct procedures there'd be no public support for a payout. Hard cases often don't fit in with good law.

 

Finally, it would appear the route her lawyer adopted prevented her being eligible for compensation. See the foot of the bbc article

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/4163705.stm

[Speckled Frost]

But it was a public body - the CPS - that adopted the discredited expert witness.

 

An important part of the judicial process is that justice is seen to be done and that simply isn't the case here.

 

The system needs changing.

[hollandaise]

Ian, I don't live in the Isle of Man, so I wasn't thinking of Tynwald. I live in the Midlands and the Law Lords in the UK do review the law and suggest changes. That's one reason they exist. And this is clearly a law that needs changing.

 

Maybe they'll get round to it when they've finished lunch.

[Dave the Cardboard Box]

Another important difference with this case was, as I understand it, that the medical evidence and that of the Police investigation was actually sound. A conviction may have resulted on that alone.

 

However, the 'expert' gave his opinion and it was decided at the appeal that his opinion may have affected the jury into being more likely to convict, because of that opinion, and therefore the conviction was 'unsafe'.

 

And people should never be convicted just because of an opinion.

 

Whether his opinion is wrong or right is not relevant, it was that the opinion (which was not fact) may have affected the jury.

[Rog]

And that is a very good point.

 

Too many people immediately assume that a finding of a conviction as being ‘unsafe’ equates to a finding of snow white innocence which although it might in strict legal terms is most certainly not necessarily the case in actuality.

[hollandaise]

And that is a very good point. 

 

Too many people immediately assume that a finding of a conviction as being ‘unsafe’ equates to a finding of snow white innocence which although it might in strict legal terms is most certainly not necessarily the case in actuality.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes, let's not forget that in this country you're guilty until Rog says otherwise.

[Rog]

And that is a very good point. 

 

Too many people immediately assume that a finding of a conviction as being ‘unsafe’ equates to a finding of snow white innocence which although it might in strict legal terms is most certainly not necessarily the case in actuality.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes, let's not forget that in this country you're guilty until Rog says otherwise.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I have read your web page.

It explains a great deal

[hollandaise]

I have read your web page.

It explains a great deal

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Well, there's no need to say it in such a sinister tone. It's there to be read. And black. And blue.

[breadbin]

Oh dear.