Wahesh
The Forefather of The Kennel
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2007
- Messages
- 24,875
- Reaction score
- 12,227
Wrongful Imprisonment Compensation?
- Thread starter Wahesh
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2016
- Messages
- 265
- Reaction score
- 92
Compensation wrongful conviction in Australia:
Individuals wrongfully convicted and imprisoned do not have a common law or statutory right to compensation in any Australian jurisdictions other than the Australian Capital Territory (ACT). However, a state or territory government may choose to make an ex gratia payment either on its own accord or as a result of a request by a party for such a payment.
An ex gratia payment is a '[p]ayment of money made or given as a concession, without legal compulsion' (Butterworth 2004). The term literally means 'out of grace' rather than as a debt of justice. State and territory governments are not obliged to make ex gratia payments in respect of wrongful convictions and a decision to refuse to make a payment is not reviewable in any way (Butterworth 2007). Ex gratia payments are made in a wide range of situations other than to compensate for wrongful convictions, including as a means of implementing financial aid packages to individuals after natural disasters. In some Australian jurisdictions, the relevant Attorney-General's office may publish general guidelines detailing the factors normally assessed in awarding ex gratia payments. Sometimes, specific guidelines may be promulgated to deal with particular types of payments. There are currently no publicly available guidelines in any Australian jurisdiction specifically dealing with ex gratia payments for wrongful conviction. Beyond that a conviction was wrongful, it is difficult to identify the factors that need to be present for a wrongfully convicted person to be compensated, nor how such compensation will be quantified. A high public profile seems to be a good start in terms of background circumstances, although even this does not guarantee success (Percy 2007).
Occasionally, facts surrounding a wrongful conviction may also support tortious claims, such as a false imprisonment, malicious prosecution or misfeasance (New Zealand Law Reform Commission 1998; Percy 2007). These tortious causes of action are very difficult to prove. Even very compelling cases of wrongful conviction will generally not give rise to a successful claim in tort. They require specific additional facts to be present beyond simply that a conviction was wrongful. As such, the protections offered in tort law to wrongfully convicted people are more of theoretical rather than practical utility.
The other type of award that needs to be distinguished from compensation is legal costs. Normally a successful criminal defendant will not be awarded the legal costs expended in defending criminal charges. However, where there have been malfunctions in the criminal process, courts in some Australian jurisdictions may award legal costs to a defendant (Fox 2005: 78, 307-308). Such awards relate to legal costs expended, not compensation.
Individuals wrongfully convicted and imprisoned do not have a common law or statutory right to compensation in any Australian jurisdictions other than the Australian Capital Territory (ACT). However, a state or territory government may choose to make an ex gratia payment either on its own accord or as a result of a request by a party for such a payment.
An ex gratia payment is a '[p]ayment of money made or given as a concession, without legal compulsion' (Butterworth 2004). The term literally means 'out of grace' rather than as a debt of justice. State and territory governments are not obliged to make ex gratia payments in respect of wrongful convictions and a decision to refuse to make a payment is not reviewable in any way (Butterworth 2007). Ex gratia payments are made in a wide range of situations other than to compensate for wrongful convictions, including as a means of implementing financial aid packages to individuals after natural disasters. In some Australian jurisdictions, the relevant Attorney-General's office may publish general guidelines detailing the factors normally assessed in awarding ex gratia payments. Sometimes, specific guidelines may be promulgated to deal with particular types of payments. There are currently no publicly available guidelines in any Australian jurisdiction specifically dealing with ex gratia payments for wrongful conviction. Beyond that a conviction was wrongful, it is difficult to identify the factors that need to be present for a wrongfully convicted person to be compensated, nor how such compensation will be quantified. A high public profile seems to be a good start in terms of background circumstances, although even this does not guarantee success (Percy 2007).
Occasionally, facts surrounding a wrongful conviction may also support tortious claims, such as a false imprisonment, malicious prosecution or misfeasance (New Zealand Law Reform Commission 1998; Percy 2007). These tortious causes of action are very difficult to prove. Even very compelling cases of wrongful conviction will generally not give rise to a successful claim in tort. They require specific additional facts to be present beyond simply that a conviction was wrongful. As such, the protections offered in tort law to wrongfully convicted people are more of theoretical rather than practical utility.
The other type of award that needs to be distinguished from compensation is legal costs. Normally a successful criminal defendant will not be awarded the legal costs expended in defending criminal charges. However, where there have been malfunctions in the criminal process, courts in some Australian jurisdictions may award legal costs to a defendant (Fox 2005: 78, 307-308). Such awards relate to legal costs expended, not compensation.
Dogna88
Kennel Addict
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2014
- Messages
- 7,587
- Reaction score
- 6,745
Lol each case is different... alot of questions need to be asked for a proper answer to be given to you... if the matter reached trial, a committal hearing would have been held prior which establishes a prima faci case, meaning a judge looking at all evidence put forward to him would think a properly instructed jury would convict a person (if evidence is taken at its highest), saying that i doubt your mate could sue the cops unless he can prove police misconduct or corruption....
In regards to the photos you say... were the served prior to the trial? If not they wouldnt not be admissible. Were the photos presented to the jury??? If so, was the authenticity of the photo questioned? Its easy to produce a photo and say it was taken at a particular time...
The appeal process is not as easy as everyone thinks as well...
Also was he on remand or in prison as a result of a conviction?
I dare say there is alot of information missing
In regards to the photos you say... were the served prior to the trial? If not they wouldnt not be admissible. Were the photos presented to the jury??? If so, was the authenticity of the photo questioned? Its easy to produce a photo and say it was taken at a particular time...
The appeal process is not as easy as everyone thinks as well...
Also was he on remand or in prison as a result of a conviction?
I dare say there is alot of information missing
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2012
- Messages
- 108,061
- Reaction score
- 121,023
Fuck her and her reptilian family lol
They are fucking nothing. That old fossil lizard is only good for a public holiday.
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2012
- Messages
- 108,061
- Reaction score
- 121,023
Speaking of cops, I feel sorry for them, honestly. They bust their arses to catch the scum *****, then the scum **** judges let the scum ***** off with a slap on the wrist.
I couldn't be a cop, unless I judge the ***** too lol
Wahesh
The Forefather of The Kennel
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2007
- Messages
- 24,875
- Reaction score
- 12,227
Same here. I mean don't get me wrong, there are dirty cops out there, but the majority are good, hard working people risking their lives everyday.
- Status