Wrongfully Imprisoned Man To Be Charged For "Food And Lodging"

[Izulde]

7,000 Pounds Worth

Wrongly jailed after a woman cried rape, Warren Blackwell applied for compensation for his three wasted years in prison.

Torn from his family and sent to languish in jail as a convicted sex attacker, the innocent father-of-two imagined he was due a hefty sum for the miscarriage of justice.

Instead, he was flabbergasted to learn the Home Office now intends to charge him nearly £7,000 for "board and lodging".

The money is for the cost of food and accommodation while he was behind bars, and will be deducted from whatever compensation he receives for wrongly imprisonment.

Mr Blackwell, 37, said: "I can't believe it, they've got to be joking. They are going to charge me for my porridge!

"I've had a letter stating that they have accepted my claim for compensation, and that the actual amount is to be decided by an assessor. But they are going to deduct £6,800 for living expenses incurred during my three years and four months behind bars.

"Apparently it's money I would have spent in normal day life, had I not been in prison."

Mr Blackwell was jailed in 1999 on the evidence of a woman who had a history of making false claims against blameless men. He was cleared at the Appeal Court in September last year after her background was exposed.

He said: "It's absolutely ludicrous. They accept they put me in prison wrongly, and accept I'm due compensation.

"Then they turn around and say, 'Thank you for your stay with us, hope you didn't miss your family too much during three years in the clanger, now off you go - oh, and here's your bill.'"

He added: "I'm going to challenge it on the grounds of discrimination. I mean, burglars and murderers who actually did commit a crime, and deserve to be in jail, don't get charged for being in prison. So why charge me?"

He said the ruling amounted to the guilty staying in jail for free, while the innocent are charged.

"I was jailed not just for a crime I didn't do, but for one that never even happened in the first place. She made the whole thing up, as was accepted by the High Court."

Mr Blackwell's ordeal began when his accuser, now 39, claimed she had been seized with a knife outside a village club early on New Year's Day 1999, taken to an alley and indecently assaulted.

She picked him out of an identity parade and a jury found him guilty, even though there was no forensic evidence and he had no previous convictions. His wife Tanya never doubted his innocence.

Eventually, the case was investigated by the Criminal Cases Review Commission which found his accuser had fabricated at least seven other allegations of sexual and physical assault. She frequently changed her name and police forces did not realise they were dealing with the same woman.

Mr Blackwell, from Woodford Halse, Northamptonshire, said he has asked his solicitor to consider appealing under Article 14 of the Human Rights Act, which relates to discrimination.

He said: "It's a pretty clear case of discrimination, wouldn't you say? If they are going to bill me for my porridge then they should charge all the other inmates as well."

His solicitor, Robert Berg, said: "He didn't ask to go to prison. It adds insult to injury to bill him for his time inside.

"It follows a House of Lords ruling which said that claims for compensation for wrongful imprisonment will incur a weekly £40 deduction for board and lodging.

"I can't see the logic. If he had not been wrongly imprisoned, he would have been at home with his family, going to work and earning a living and paying his mortgage.

"Why should he bear the cost of a punishment he didn't even deserve?"

Mr Blackwell's compensation is still being decided by the independent assessor, who will take into account factors such as loss of earnings and damage to reputation.

The final figure is likely to be in excess of £100,000. From that he will almost certainly deduct "rent" and living costs, said the Ministry of Justice.

A spokesman said: "It has been standard practice to do this in miscarriage of justice cases since the Criminal Appeals Act 1995 came into force.

"The assessor usually deducts a small amount of rent and living expenses of being in prison from the much, much higher figure of the actual compensation."

The practice of charging "bed and breakfast" was challenged this year by the Bridgewater Three, the men wrongly convicted of murdering newspaper boy Carl Bridgewater in 1978.

But the Lords upheld the principle, meaning Mr Blackwell would have to go the European Court of Human Rights for any hope of overturning it.

This is so unreal and absurd I can't even comprehend it.

[JediKooter]

If this is true, they should be asking for the money from the lady you falsely accused him of rape. He was in jail because of her actions, not his.

[dj_morton]

I agree!

[DanGarion]

It actually sounds sort of fair. If they give him compensation they will take out the room and boarding.

[Izulde]

Originally Posted by dangarion

It actually sounds sort of fair. If they give him compensation they will take out the room and boarding.

Why should he have to pay for room and boarding when he wasn't even supposed to have been imprisoned in the first place? That's three years of his life he can never get back, not to mention all the difficulties and trauma that come both with being an innocent person imprisoned and how it's going to affect his post-prison life.

You don't see the other inmates getting charged room and board. Should we then start hitting all the other prisoners with room and board fees too?

[Joe]

Originally Posted by Izulde

You don't see the other inmates getting charged room and board. Should we then start hitting all the other prisoners with room and board fees too?

Absolutely.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by Izulde

Why should he have to pay for room and boarding when he wasn't even supposed to have been imprisoned in the first place? That's three years of his life he can never get back, not to mention all the difficulties and trauma that come both with being an innocent person imprisoned and how it's going to affect his post-prison life.

You don't see the other inmates getting charged room and board. Should we then start hitting all the other prisoners with room and board fees too?

Why should he be allowed to sue because the system found him guilty? They have already agreed to give him compensation. In fact.

The final figure is likely to be in excess of £100,000. From that he will almost certainly deduct "rent" and living costs, said the Ministry of Justice.

So 7,000 minus from that is still 93,000, what's the problem here?

[M GO BLUE!!!]

Originally Posted by Izulde

This is so unreal and absurd I can't even comprehend it.

Until reading, I assumed it was in Texas.

[korme]

Originally Posted by dangarion

Why should he be allowed to sue because the system found him guilty? They have already agreed to give him compensation. In fact.



So 7,000 minus from that is still 93,000, what's the problem here?

It's not the total sum that matters. In no way does he deserve to get 7 large taken from him.

[Izulde]

Originally Posted by Joe

Absolutely.

I would still argue that he shouldn't be charged room and board in this instance, but I could see the logic more clearly.

I do have a problem with the idea of charging all inmates room and board, though. It saddles them with debt when they get out on top of the employability problems that come with being a convicted felon. This debt could ultimately lead to higher rates of repeat offenses.

Besides, technically they're already paying room and board when they do prison jobs at less than minimum wage, etc.

[st.cronin]

I don't really see a problem with this. Its just a factor in the calculation of what he's owed. I mean, its absurd to suggest that you can be compensated for something like this, but once you accept that principle you may as well do it right.

[Izulde]

Originally Posted by dangarion

Why should he be allowed to sue because the system found him guilty? They have already agreed to give him compensation. In fact.

Because he does have a point in that he, an innocent party, is being charged for room and board while the guilty inmates essentially are getting it free. Furthermore, even if the inmates are paying for it by the work they do (assuming inmates work in British prisons--I don't know anything about the English penal system), if he did the same work, he's still being charged an extra 7,000 that the guilty don't have to pay.

So 7,000 minus from that is still 93,000, what's the problem here?

As Shorty said, it's not the sum so much as it is the principle of the thing. The man was wrongly imprisoned. He shouldn't have to pay anything.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by Shorty3281

It's not the total sum that matters. In no way does he deserve to get 7 large taken from him.

It's not being taken from him. They did no choose to do this till he decided to sue for compensation, because he was in jail. This is the consequence. If you ask for compensation then they will take the cost of room and boarding from the compensation, it sounds completely fair to me. I don't see why this is such a big deal. It's not like they said they were going to charge him before he requested compensation.

[Izulde]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I don't really see a problem with this. Its just a factor in the calculation of what he's owed. I mean, its absurd to suggest that you can be compensated for something like this, but once you accept that principle you may as well do it right.

Why do you think it's absurd that he can be compensated?

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Izulde

Why do you think it's absurd that he can be compensated?

Because you can't unbreak an egg. No matter what they do, they can't change the fact that he was wrongfully imprisoned.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by Izulde

Why do you think it's absurd that he can be compensated?

It's like compensating someone for the death of a family member. Sure I'll take it, but is there really a monetary amount that life is worth?

[Izulde]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Because you can't unbreak an egg. No matter what they do, they can't change the fact that he was wrongfully imprisoned.

While that's certainly true, receiving monetary compensation to make up for lost wages, promotion opportunities, any extra interest on a mortgage, etc, goes at least part of the way to correcting the wrong.

Now, the amount of compensation is another matter entirely and gets into a lot of grey areas, but I still stand to believe that he shouldn't be charged for room and board as part of the compensation settlement.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by Izulde

Because he does have a point in that he, an innocent party, is being charged for room and board while the guilty inmates essentially are getting it free. Furthermore, even if the inmates are paying for it by the work they do (assuming inmates work in British prisons--I don't know anything about the English penal system), if he did the same work, he's still being charged an extra 7,000 that the guilty don't have to pay.



As Shorty said, it's not the sum so much as it is the principle of the thing. The man was wrongly imprisoned. He shouldn't have to pay anything.

You do realize this is an accounting thing right? they could just as easily do this in the background without him even knowing the amount if being removed from the compensation.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Because you can't unbreak an egg. No matter what they do, they can't change the fact that he was wrongfully imprisoned.

And no matter what you do, you can't bring back a spouse killed by a drunk driver.

No matter what you do, you can't change the fact that little Timmy died from poisoned baby food.

No matter what you do, you can't change the fact that the doctor cut off your healthy leg.

That is why we have torts. You can't change the past, but you can compensate for it.

As for paying for imprisonment, several states in the U.S. have adopted pay for your stay programs. Florida is the harshest among them and has implemented some crazy schemes. Inmates have to pay unit pricing for items. That means a single aspirin costs $5 (the cost of the whole bottle). If you want another aspirin, that's another $5.

[Izulde]

Originally Posted by dangarion

It's like compensating someone for the death of a family member. Sure I'll take it, but is there really a monetary amount that life is worth?

I would say that's a little different, but it depends on the type of death you're talking about. Old age, cancer, etc. are things that are unfortunate, but they happen and aren't preventable.

Murder, gross negligence in medical care, etc. are deaths that -are- preventable and fall in to the should not have happened category, hence why the American legal system allows for the possibility of suing for compensation.

Now you can argue that cancer, old age, and so on are preventable and fall into the should not have happened category, but good luck getting compensation from Fate/Chance/God/Yahweh/Allah/Imhotep/Odin/Jupiter/Zeus/Whatevernameyouwanttoputtoanyomnipotentpower.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Izulde

While that's certainly true, receiving monetary compensation to make up for lost wages, promotion opportunities, any extra interest on a mortgage, etc, goes at least part of the way to correcting the wrong.

Now, the amount of compensation is another matter entirely and gets into a lot of grey areas, but I still stand to believe that he shouldn't be charged for room and board as part of the compensation settlement.

Right, and if you're going to figure it that way its just as reasonable to figure on expenses not incurred, ie room and board.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by dangarion

It's like compensating someone for the death of a family member. Sure I'll take it, but is there really a monetary amount that life is worth?

On a purely legal basis, yes, there is.

[Izulde]

Originally Posted by dangarion

You do realize this is an accounting thing right? they could just as easily do this in the background without him even knowing the amount if being removed from the compensation.

They could have, but they didn't. And now that the fact is out in the open, it becomes a subject for debate and dispute.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by Izulde

Now you can argue that cancer, old age, and so on are preventable and fall into the should not have happened category, but good luck getting compensation from Fate/Chance/God/Yahweh/Allah/Imhotep/Odin/Jupiter/Zeus/Whatevernameyouwanttoputtoanyomnipotentpower.

I thought it was pretty obvious I was talking about wrongful death, not natural.

[Izulde]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Right, and if you're going to figure it that way its just as reasonable to figure on expenses not incurred, ie room and board.

Expenses not incurred is one thing.

Originally Posted by article

The money is for the cost of food and accommodation while he was behind bars.

This is another. It's charging him for being roomed and boarded in the prison, which he should not have to pay.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Right, and if you're going to figure it that way its just as reasonable to figure on expenses not incurred, ie room and board.

We are fighting a losing battle. Reason doesn't factor into this discussion.

[Izulde]

Originally Posted by dangarion

I thought it was pretty obvious I was talking about wrongful death, not natural.

I wasn't sure if you were talking just about wrongful death, or if you were including natural death (i.e. life insurance) in there.

Hence my post covering both areas

[molson]

I thought this was going to be worse when I read the subject line.

He's not "paying" anything. Not a cent. If he thinks he's entitled to more compensation, fine, I can understand that. But he's not getting a bill.

I realize what happened to him sucks. But unfortunately, the ONLY way to guarantee a wrongful conviction rate of 0% is to convict absolutely nobody. These things do happen. There's no reason the jail shouldn't deduct "benefits" that he did receive from the (much larger) amount that a jury took away. This really isn't the jail's fault either - the fault lies with the jury and complaining victim.

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

On a purely legal basis, yes, there is.

There also is at another level. For example, if someone said, I'll give you $1 Million to stay in a prison for a year, I'd consider it.

[Ryan S]

Originally Posted by dangarion

You do realize this is an accounting thing right? they could just as easily do this in the background without him even knowing the amount if being removed from the compensation.

That is exactly what they should have done in the first place.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Ryan S

That is exactly what they should have done in the first place.

I imagine this is what every other jail does - and what this one will do starting now.

[larrymcg421]

I don't have a problem with the jail charging for this. I just think they're sending the bill to the wrong place.

[TroyF]

Guess I'm not sure why there is a debate here. It's disgusting that the state would do this. They F'd up their prosecution, they can eat 7k. How much waste would they uncover if they did a 3 year audit? At least 7k, probably a hell of a lot more.

They screwed up. Give the man a decent sized settlement to make up for the fact you wrongfully stripped three years of his life away and be done with it.

You want the 7k that bad? Find the people who covered up the fact she'd repeatedly pulled this BS and take it out of their budget. (cops, prosecutors, etc.)

It's insane that they are doing this.

[bignej]

Does he have to pay taxes on the whole compensation? Definitely have to pay taxes so you can have courts and prisons.

[molson]

Originally Posted by TroyF

You want the 7k that bad? Find the people who covered up the fact she'd repeatedly pulled this BS and take it out of their budget. (cops, prosecutors, etc.)

I don't see anywhere that anything was "covered up". Without seeing the rest of the evidence, the jury is the only entity that screwed up here.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Izulde

Why do you think it's absurd that he can be compensated?

Should the guy be compensated? If the prosecution did something wrong (burried evidence or went after a guy they knew to be innocent) I could see compensation, but it doesn't seem right to compensate the guy for the jury getting it wrong. Or maybe the better way to say it is that it makes sense for him to get compensation, but I can't see where anyone should be responsible for providing that compensation.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by bignej

Does he have to pay taxes on the whole compensation? Definitely have to pay taxes so you can have courts and prisons.

You don't normally pay taxes on money awarded in court. (In the USA).

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by molson

I don't see anywhere that anything was "covered up". Without seeing the rest of the evidence, the jury is the only entity that screwed up here.

Juries can do everything exactly right and the result can still be a wrongful conviction. I think it is pretty odd to scapegoat a jury in these cases.

And while it's true that a convict receives "free room and board," it's not like they can get gainful employment while they are in prison. So, to me, it's a bit strange to say you have to pay for your room and board (subtracted from compensation for wrongful imprisonment) when a prisoner has no other means of paying for their room and board. Even if a prisoner is independently wealthy, they can't pay for their own food and rooming (except under that new weird California bill). So, in addition to the many freedoms, this prisoner was wrongfully denied, he was denied the chance to make a living, choose his food, and choose his board. I think billing him for that is rubbing salt in the wound.

[molson]

Originally Posted by John Galt

Juries can do everything exactly right and the result can still be a wrongful conviction.

So can prosecutors. And of course, prosecutors have a much lower standard of proof in terms of what's required to take someone to trial v. what's supposed to be required for a jury to find someone guilty.

All that goes out the window when there's misconduct obviously, but I haven't seen any mention that that happened here. Even liars can be sexually assaulted.