Should he have been denied compensation?

[woolybanana]

He was tried three times and found not guilty twice, did six years in prison, lost his wife, family and career. Now, I do accept he is not the most engaging personality, but should he have been denied compensation? Somehow it seems not quite right that a committee of civil servants (I guess) should make this decision. It smacks of a guilty verdict by the back door.

Or am I just being woolyheaded.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/sion-jenkins-compensation-bid-rejected-2048393.html

[Gardener]

He was found guilty but managed to obtain a retrial (twice). The jury didn't find him not guilty couldn't agree whether he was guilty either. So under English law he had to be released, which isn't quite the same thing as being found completely innocent. May be that it why he hasn't been awarded compensation? His first wife and children were quite quick to distance themselves from him if I remember and his being released from prison hasn't changed that according to one paper.

[Gardengirl]

I heard on the radio this morning that to be awarded compensation you have to be able to prove your innocence. They said he can't do that eg. no DNA from anyone else was found.

[Russethouse]

 From what I gleaned from the good old Jeremy Vine show, if this were paid it 'may' open the door to those held in prison for long periods while they await trial, only to be found innocent. That could cost us a lot of money (Of course it may also require the police to be more certain of their facts !)

 You are right, there is something deeply unattractive about him in my opinion, but he may just be a victim of the media which pretty much took against him from the outset if I remember correctly

[Pommier]

It sounded on the radio as if the police wouldn't be looking for anyone else for the murder, but that the evidence was insufficient to keep Jenkins in prison.