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

Didn't know you had to be "clearly innocent", surely if you've served the time in the conditions he has, then been released and acquitted...

I think that he deserves it. The police were determined to get a conviction and he was the fall guy. His marriage was destroyed by the allegations. I think that he will appeal to the European courts now.

I'm not so sure, he appealed twice and a jury could not find a verdict (beyond reasonable doubt) either time so it must have been a really fine line on the basis of the evidence. Obviously I wasn't there and don't know exactly what the evidence was, but if he was convicted and then two further jury trials couldn't come up with an answer there must be more to this than meets the eye.

Yes but this case was a horrendous one, of the teenage girl getting killed at home. It might have prejudiced some jury members. If the evidence is not there he is innocent. If he is innocent then he should be compensated for time served. If he was a career criminal I would say not, but he had no criminal record prior to this.

In Scotland juries have a useful tool at their disposal, not only can they rule "guilty" or "not guilty", but they can also reach a verdict of "not proven". The latter may well be useful in England & Wales in cases such as this, where it is not entirely clear if the person is entirely innocent.

Yes that would settle this case. But as it stands now he is innocent and should be compensated.

Is he though? The juries couldn't reach a verdict, they didn't rule "not guilty".

They also did not find him guilty.

I'm with Amnesia on this - we have a very simple system of "innocent until proven guilty".

He was not proven guilty, so he is innocent.

You can argue all you like about whether the system needs changing or not, but this guy wasn't found guilty so he should be compensated.

The "clearly innocent" test is ridiculously. What they are basically saying is that a jury are confident enough to release him, but not to compensate him? What a joke.

FWIW, I think it might be a good idea to keep the current system for convictions - ie someone can be found either innocent, or guilty - but on appeal they must be found "clearly innocent" in order to be released. In which case they should also be compensated.

This case is just crazy. It seems that justice and public safety are less important than the compensation money.

While that's true in criminal law, I thought claims for compensation were more akin to civil law where things are very murky.

Awarding compensation would be the same as saying the police were guilty of prosecuting an innocent man. The police are also innocent unless proven guilty, and that has clearly not happened.

I should add, I find the law to be inconsistent, counter intuitive, illogical and often completely contradictory. The inner workings are only comprehensible to those with a degree in historical fantasy and abstract sorcery. I'm sure others here have a better handle on it.

Compensation claims are civil which means the onus is on the claimant to prove that the defendant had a responsibility that was breached. It's a common law process with laws set by precedence and Judges. I don't see how a case of "not proven" by a jury was a breach of responsibilty, the guy's got his freedom (and even that was under question) even after two verdicts of "no verdict" so he's not "clearly innocent" if those are the rules, then those are the rules.

What if new evidence comes to light which clearly convicts him? Do you think he'll return the money?? Criminal law is the only place that the "Innocent until proven Guilty" thing applies because the onus is on the prosecution to provide "Proof beyond reasonable doubt" it has no place in Civil Law.

Tricky one. I lived in Hastings at the time and though I did not know the guy personally there was so much malicious gossip he could easily have been crucified on the street.
Which is his problem really, reputation.

There was a smear campaign by the police. A lot of the things that were said were started by the police and unfounded.

Civil cases are decided on the "balance of probabilities", ie. proof of 50%+.

Just because there was enough to "get you off" criminal proceedings, that doesn't mean to say you can't be found against in a civil case (e.g. when OJ Simpson was successfully sued, despite not being convicted).



Well if that's the case he should sue them for defamation.