No it doesn't, there may simply have been a lack of evidence.
Help after being on remand and being found not guilty.
- Thread starter Jones
- Start date
No it doesn't, there may simply have been a lack of evidence.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Feb 2008
- Posts
- 11,114
Your story is actually quite shocking. I've never thought about this.
8 months in prison for nothing. Life destroyed, and then out the door with an "oh well, never mind" attitude from the authorities.
I'd be speaking to every solicitor I could to make sure I'm returned to the state I was in before the whole debacle. Of course, they can't put you in a flat/house, but monetary compensation would be expected, including lost earnings from the job you would have still held had they not put you away (for nothing).
That's truly horrendous, and I do feel awful for you. You're actually raising quite an important issue here. Kudos to you for that.
This is true. It is interesting how people are very quick to mention that you might still have done it even if you're found not guilty but almost even one believes a guilty verdict.
It is funny, the judge apologised three times to the jury for wasting their time but hardly said anything to me. The poor jury wasting two days of their lives.
![[FnG]magnolia](/styles/overclockers/avatars/9.png){kind=avatar}
Caporegime
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 28,763
- Location
- Auckland
Did you do it?
I have no idea what you're talking about.
Last edited:
Many people would like to think this is the case!!!!!!!!
Please answer this:
I do not believe that Jimmy saville was ever charged or convicted for the alleged sex crimes we have heard so much about. Operation Yewtree show that the criminal justice system, or in this case the Police, have spent a lot of time and money investigating saville and his associates.
But given that he was never found guilty of anything before his death, does this make him innocent by your statement?
[FnG]magnolia;27898306 said:Are you basing this on anything, like facts? If we're going to guess how these things work then I'd guess that most people have some savings behind them, at least enough to cover their rent or mortgage for a short while.
I'm not sure about the employer part either and I don't think it's as clear cut as "Welp, you're on remand so you're fired".
You've probably got some data which proves me wrong though
A lot of people don't have savings, in fact more people are in debt then have a lot of savings.
You think an employer is going to keep you if you're not able to do do your contracted hours and have no idea when you will be able to come back? You would be lucky if they do. I wasn't even able to contact my employer for 3 weeks after I was arrested (my mum had told them where I was).
No I didn't do it as was proven in court.
It works the other way too. Do you believe someone is guilty when they are found guilty in court?
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 25,821
- Location
- Glasgow
It's a technical point but in Scotland there's another option, that of not proven. Which means you leave court free because there's (usually been) a lack of evidence, not because you're necessarily innocent and this option recognises that although the prosecution hasn't proven their case to the satisfaction of the court you shouldn't go free without a stain on your character because there's a fair chance you did do it.
I rather think Orionaut confused your story with that of arknor who was arrested twice by the age of 15 in his own words.
For what it's worth if you're right about the lack of support for those who are held on remand before being found not guilty then it sounds like it's a loophole compared to the support that is (and rightly so) offered to those who are released after being found guilty. It seems iniquitous that you could be placed in a worse position for being not guilty of a crime than if you were found guilty of the same crime.
It might be interesting to know how many of the 12,000 figure you quote are in prison for a period of more than say two weeks. Also if the average prison population in the UK is around 85,000 at any given point in time (figures for 2014, I've used December) then 12,000 seems intuitively rather high - even if it's equally split across the year then effectively 1 in every 85 prisoners at any given time would have to be held on remand and found not guilty. However maybe that's a perfectly reasonable number, I simply don't know enough about the context of how many are remanded and found guilty, how long is the average time on remand, how well the average person on remand is catered for on release and whether they receive any form of redress if needed.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 25,821
- Location
- Glasgow
Small point of order.
That was Arsonists comment, not mine?
Yes, very sorry. I've offered an explanation for a confusion about posters and managed to confuse the posters and issue yet further. Whoops.
I could always edit my post and delete yours to remove the confusion or I could just leave them as a lesson to me to double-check...
A few figures I found.
Average time on remand is 55 days. (BBC 2009)
Average time is 9 weeks (guardian 2013)
the average time spent on remand, awaiting trial 15 weeks (2009 prisonreformtrust)
(straightstatistics.fullfact.org)
Remanded in custody but found not guilty
2005 -14500 2006-12800 2007 -11400
Remanded and found guilty and sentenced to immediate custody
2005 - 41300 2006 - 39700 2007 -38800
Didn't have figures for people remanded but given community service
(theguardian.com)
More than 35,000 people kept on remand in 2013 went on to be either acquitted or be given non-custodial sentences,
Last edited:
Dude they were "known" in GD's world of assumption suspicion and right wing know everything that means they lead a cartel and must be napalmed on sight like a spider!
The bit in bold is what you should be seeking to take action against, and like I've linked, there is scope to seek compensation for. You were a valid suspect, in a valid (at least at the time) case, so your arrest seems justified, if there wasn't enough evidence for the trial to last more than one day then I'd say the CPS weren't in a position to charge you, but IANAL, presumably whoever you spoke to is.
Abstracting from your case, if anyone were charged and the prosecution actually or essentially withdrew the case in the early stages of trial, then I'd consider that equivalent to having proven your innocence, it's not the same as being found not guilty at the end of a trial because evidence available did not go beyond reasonable doubt (not to say that would make you any more guilty).
tl;dr
There is a facility for claiming compensation, it may not be as structured as that on release from a served sentence but I'd imagine that is because you are very much a fringe case in the UK, it is unusual to wait that long without trial.
Just found something to back that up:
https://www.justice.gov.uk/download...and-research-publications/remand-thematic.pdf
Proper LOL'd at this, good job.
My main problem was my legal team I had at my bail hearing was awful. I don't think they did much to get me bail. A bit later (approx 3 months) I was offered a plea bargain to accepted ABH and I would walk that day. My barrister told me to take it as I would likely be found guilty as we would had a hard time explaining the injuries. I kept pointing out problems with the evidence and it turned out he hadn't even read the evidence. He just looked at the summery and the photos. Sacked him quickly!
Off topic, I do wonder how many people take plea bargains even if they didn't do it just to get out of jail.
The reasons I was refused bail (I was told this months later) was because the CPS told the judge I committed the offence under stress and so would likely do this again. At this point it was a very serious charge. They also said I wasn't local so might run off. II wasn't in court during this so I am only going by my solicitor I hired after my bail hearing told me
Off topic, I do wonder how many people take plea bargains even if they didn't do it just to get out of jail.
The reasons I was refused bail (I was told this months later) was because the CPS told the judge I committed the offence under stress and so would likely do this again. At this point it was a very serious charge. They also said I wasn't local so might run off. II wasn't in court during this so I am only going by my solicitor I hired after my bail hearing told me
My first thoughts when I read your post were wondering what your representation was like, I didn't want to say but I thought like a lot of working innocent dudes you'd tried to represent yourself. Tbh book an appointment with a good solicitor in your town and see what your recourse is. I strongly recommend this even though you're probably quite traumatised and want to avoid the issue.
That was from Digital spy it has all the help you need.
You can either stand up for yourself and pursue all avenues... Lets be honest what more have you got to live for than revenge, thats how you portray yourself.
Doesn't sound like your friends or family gave a crap about you during that time either...
Sue someone... its all you can do really?
Last edited: