Insiders believe that Alex Chalk is likely to support the reform. The convicted prisoners were ordered by the Minister of Justice on Monday as it emerged that Rishi Sunak felt it was unfair to force them to pay for room and board.
Alex Chalk demanded that officials «take another look» at the diagram to make sure it was works for victims after the Andrew Malkinson scandal, who served 17 years in prison for a rape he did not commit.
Mr. Malkinson has consistently maintained his innocence and was finally declared a free man when his conviction was overturned by the Court of Appeal judges last week.
Although he won't have to directly reimburse prison service costs if he wins compensation, existing laws mean that Mr. Malkinson's payment can be withheld from expenses he would incur outside the country, such as food and lodging.
A spokesman for the prime minister said he did not think it was right «in principle» for people imprisoned for crimes they did not commit to pay living expenses after senior Tories demanded a revision of the controversial rules.
“I don’t know the details of the specific case and I believe that this is an independent council that considers and then makes a decision,” the spokesman said.
“But in principle, for someone who was mistaken I don't think the Prime Minister thinks it's fair to reimburse them because they were wrongfully imprisoned for something they didn't do.»
Fairness is a “top” priority
The Justice Department spokesman said Mr. Chok is “committed to providing fair compensation to victims of miscarriage of justice.”
The spokesperson added, “That’s why he urgently instructed Justice Department officials to once again analyze the current system to ensure that it works in the interests of the victims.”
Mr Chalk is expected to make a decision after he returns from his summer vacation next week, but insiders believe he is likely to be sympathetic to the reform given his stated belief that fairness is a «top» priority. for the UK legal tradition.
The statutory compensation scheme for victims of miscarriage of justice is governed by section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, which was amended by the government in 2014 to limit the right to compensation to those individuals for whom it has been shown “beyond a reasonable doubt” that did not commit an offense on the basis of a newly discovered fact.
If the Minister of Justice decides that the applicant is entitled to compensation, the case is referred to an independent judge to decide how much he should be awarded.
The judge, who is currently a retired High Court judge, may award up to £1 million to any applicant serving a prison sentence of more than 10 years, or up to £500,000 in all other cases.
Controversial, but he can make deductions. for «living expenses saved», as well as any behavior that contributed to their conviction, their broader criminal history, and their receipt of some other form of compensation.
Change aims at «living expenses saved»
Sources reported that there is an amendment to the law likely to have focused on «living expenses saved», which covers any significant savings, such as mortgage payments, that may have been made as a result of detention. It can be abandoned altogether.
Dame Priti Patel, former Home Secretary, Sir Robert Buckland, former Minister of Justice, Dominic Grieve, former Attorney General, and Sir Bob Neill, Chairman of the Justice Committee, called for reform of this aspect of the law.
However, legal sources have suggested that Mr Malkinson is likely to receive the largest amount of compensation by suing the Greater Manchester Police for wrongful arrest and conviction.
Свежие комментарии