Is ' Sorry' Enough ?

[Bazile]

The court of appeal have ruled on this matter .

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23241520

In effect therefore , there is no legal basis for his claim .

However , i feel sorry for the guy .
He was incarcerated for eight years in prison , but then acquitted after a
re-trial , of the killing .

What's your personal feeling on the matter - do you consider that some sort of compensation was warranted ?

[rockyracoon]

He lost 8 years of his life so yes I do think he should be compensated.

[ummmm]

//In January, the High Court had ruled that Mr George did not qualify for compensation because jurors could still reasonably have convicted him despite new evidence that led to his acquittal.//

Would that be the reason?

[woofgang]

Difficult, from reading that report, it sounds like they still think he did it. It seems as though the evidence of guilt was shakey, not that the new evidence proves him innocent.

[rockyracoon]

If they think there's enough evidence for a jury to still convict, why don't they try him again, or am I being thick?

[ummmm]

How many years would he have served if he'd served his sentence?

[Octavius]

The gun residue found on his coat a year after the murder was in trial 1 said to have only come from that gun, in trial 2 it was argued it could have come from anywhere including cross contamination. So as presented in trial 1, the evidence was sound enough for a murder conviction and on that basis no compo.

Interestingly he has been paid a lot of money from tabloids, and had a £1.4m claim against the CPS turmed down in 2010.

[ummmm]

So looks like they think he's guilty.

[jim360]

It seems as though the argument is that "we may have been wrong but it wasn't our fault." If that is actually true then there are no grounds for compensation because the justice system isn't liable. So I think we'd have to look at the evidence against him, and since I really don't have the time, energy or motivation to do that I'll have to trust the judges who did.

[FredPuli43]

The Court is evidently applying a civil law standard of proof in compensation claims, one of balance of probabilities having to be in the claimant's favour, rather than of beyond reasonable doubt. That being so, this man is not entitled to compensation.

[viv38]

Heard on news today that 'he is not innocent enough' whatever that means !

[youngmafbog]

It means one piece of evidence was dodgy but the rest is not, hence the jururs could still reasonably convict.

I wonder if Mr George would like a full retrial? I suspect not.

[viv38]

How many of you think he did it ?

[mushroom25]

on balance of probabilities, unlikely. Gowan Avenue is a long road with very few escape routes; as someone living only 1/2 mile away barry george would have known this, and that the probability of being spotted (and recognised) was very high.

[ludwig]

// Mr George did not qualify for compensation because jurors could still reasonably have convicted him despite new evidence that led to his acquittal. //

That seems a bit strange to me. It's as if the judge is saying, 'I still think you probably did it, so you don't get anything'.

[Twenty20]

Not related to this particular case obviously, but Barry George is a nasty piece of work. A string of sexual assaults on women, violence towards his wife (in a marriage of convenience), caught in the grounds of Kensington Palace wearing a balaclava and in possession of a 12 inch hunting knife and rope.

What the Judge was trying to say in this case, I think, was that if the jury had been directed properly by the previous Judge, there's a reasonable assumption that George could have been found guilty, therefore he's not entitled to compensation.

[Old_Geezer]

If I were the victim of a miscarriage of justice I don't think I'd be impressed being told I wasn't entitled to have the wrong done me compensated for because the verdict seemed reasonable at the time. It would be the same experience I'd been subjected to regardless. It seems one is not dealnig with compensation for the experience but some sort a sort of gameshow win.

[FredPuli43]

Tell that to O J Simpson,OG. His was acquitted of murder, on the 'beyond reasonable doubt' standard. He was successfully sued for millions,for the same matter, on the balance of probabilities principle.Mr George may be fortunate .

[ludwig]

// What the Judge was trying to say in this case, I think, was that if the jury had been directed properly by the previous Judge, there's a reasonable assumption that George could have been found guilty, therefore he's not entitled to compensation. //

or as I said // 'I still think you probably did it, so you don't get anything'.//

It's just strange. I have no idea whether he's guilty or not because I haven't seen all the evidence, I just find it odd that a judge can effectively overrule a jury's decision like that.

[FredPuli43]

The judges didn't overrule the jury's decision. The reasons are set out above. It works the other way, too. The Court of Appeal frequently rules that the jury was misdirected by the trial judge, or inadmissible evidence was used to secure a conviction, but the jury would have convicted anyway and so the conviction stands ("applying the proviso", in the jargon). Here they've applied the principle that a finding of not guilty is not a finding of innocence.