Did Anyone See the Colin Stagg story on BBC1?

[Somerled]

Yes you can apply for compensation but it takes years to come through. There's no other support as such for the innocent, only for those who are guilty and have repented their sins & served their time.

[Rod Paradise]

wow rod, that is fucking appalling. do you know if that's a scottish thing or uk wide?

No, England too, first I heard of it was when the Birmingham 6 were billed for being held unjustly.

[Rod Paradise]

Yes you can apply for compensation but it takes years to come through. There's no other support as such for the innocent, only for those who are guilty and have repented their sins & served their time.

The petulant behaviour by the legal system is a disgrace to us all in these situations.

If a criminal needs support when being released how much more does an innocent person?

[gatso]

so sick

so are guilty people charged for their keep too or do you only have to pay if you're innocent?

[Rod Paradise]

so sick

so are guilty people charged for their keep too or do you only have to pay if you're innocent?

Guilty people leave with their (meagre) earnings from prison jobs AFAIK.

The Establishment is very huffy when proved wrong sadly.

[Robert HM]

A truly shocking story of how an innocent man could get fitted up for a murder by the police who decided he was guilty without any evidence except for the fact he was a bit of loner with oddball beliefs.

A few things that came to mind after watching this programme:

1. The tabloid press are scum. To print Staggs picture next to the headline "No Girl is Safe" AFTER he was found not guilty was totally reprehensible.

2. Who are these people who turn up at trials to boo and shout catcalls at defendants in high profile cases? Have they really got nothing better to do with their miserable lives?

3. How long is going to take before defendants are given anonymity before a trial? The reporting of the Nickell case led the public to believe Stagg was guilty before the trial even began. Look at the footballers who have been arrested but not charged with rape. Everyone knows them and their names have been tarnished with virtually no reason.

4. Lastly, wouldn't have been ironic if Stagg had gone to the police to tell them "Lizzie James" had murdered a woman and child in a Satanic ritual killing?

All in all a very disturbing programme. I can hope Stagg and Rachels family can find peace now.

No I didn't watch the program but knew about it's contents. I have kept an eye on this case since the early days as a brief in South London and even living in Wimbledon at the time of the offence. So many things I want to comment upon in this thread.

This was a high profile case and the police felt under pressure to get a result, they were weak and buckled under to the pressure. A "Senior Officer" saw the prime suspect and persuaded himself as to his guilt, didn't bother with Judge and Jury, and went ahead to try to prove his guilt by the most amazing means. That officer was not supported by all his staff I understand.

Sadly this is in the public eye because of the horrible nature of the offence itself. However what about the lower profile cases where you don't find out that the same happened time after time, i.e. and officer has decided as to guilt and tailored the evidence to fit his theories, it happens more than you think. Don't, of course, ask me for examples.

Just to make sure you don't sleep happily in your beds tonight I will also point out that since the Stagg case there has been legislation making it harder to check police actions. Furthermore Governments, especially this one, has passed more and more anti defence laws to ensure that the CPS have the upper hand in cases and they know that some innocent people will be convicted in an effort to keep as many baddies in custody as possible. A few years back we had a shortage of prison beds and new prisons were built and, guess what, they are now also full.

Regarding successful appellants having to pay for their keep from compensation, that is, I believe nationwide. However compensation is rare as there are many hoops to jump through to get this. A person who simply appeals a Guilty finding at trial and wins his appeal is not entitled to compensation, he has to rely on an appeal "out of time" and based on new evidence found after the trial, bearing in mind the law on disclosure has also been stiffened up against a defendant this is a rare event.

[The Camel]

A truly shocking story of how an innocent man could get fitted up for a murder by the police who decided he was guilty without any evidence except for the fact he was a bit of loner with oddball beliefs.

A few things that came to mind after watching this programme:

1. The tabloid press are scum. To print Staggs picture next to the headline "No Girl is Safe" AFTER he was found not guilty was totally reprehensible.

2. Who are these people who turn up at trials to boo and shout catcalls at defendants in high profile cases? Have they really got nothing better to do with their miserable lives?

3. How long is going to take before defendants are given anonymity before a trial? The reporting of the Nickell case led the public to believe Stagg was guilty before the trial even began. Look at the footballers who have been arrested but not charged with rape. Everyone knows them and their names have been tarnished with virtually no reason.

4. Lastly, wouldn't have been ironic if Stagg had gone to the police to tell them "Lizzie James" had murdered a woman and child in a Satanic ritual killing?

All in all a very disturbing programme. I can hope Stagg and Rachels family can find peace now.

No I didn't watch the program but knew about it's contents. I have kept an eye on this case since the early days as a brief in South London and even living in Wimbledon at the time of the offence. So many things I want to comment upon in this thread.

This was a high profile case and the police felt under pressure to get a result, they were weak and buckled under to the pressure. A "Senior Officer" saw the prime suspect and persuaded himself as to his guilt, didn't bother with Judge and Jury, and went ahead to try to prove his guilt by the most amazing means. That officer was not supported by all his staff I understand.

Sadly this is in the public eye because of the horrible nature of the offence itself. However what about the lower profile cases where you don't find out that the same happened time after time, i.e. and officer has decided as to guilt and tailored the evidence to fit his theories, it happens more than you think. Don't, of course, ask me for examples.

Just to make sure you don't sleep happily in your beds tonight I will also point out that since the Stagg case there has been legislation making it harder to check police actions. Furthermore Governments, especially this one, has passed more and more anti defence laws to ensure that the CPS have the upper hand in cases and they know that some innocent people will be convicted in an effort to keep as many baddies in custody as possible. A few years back we had a shortage of prison beds and new prisons were built and, guess what, they are now also full.

Regarding successful appellants having to pay for their keep from compensation, that is, I believe nationwide. However compensation is rare as there are many hoops to jump through to get this. A person who simply appeals a Guilty finding at trial and wins his appeal is not entitled to compensation, he has to rely on an appeal "out of time" and based on new evidence found after the trial, bearing in mind the law on disclosure has also been stiffened up against a defendant this is a rare event.

Thanks for that post Robert.

Is there a legal reason why suspects are named even before they are charged?

Some guy was charged or at least named in the Suffolk prostitutes murder case before they found the killer. Footballers Jonny Evans, Robin Van Persie, Steve Moran and I'm sure a couple of others have been named in rape cases but never reached court. It just seems ridiculously unfair.

[Robert HM]

A truly shocking story of how an innocent man could get fitted up for a murder by the police who decided he was guilty without any evidence except for the fact he was a bit of loner with oddball beliefs.

A few things that came to mind after watching this programme:

1. The tabloid press are scum. To print Staggs picture next to the headline "No Girl is Safe" AFTER he was found not guilty was totally reprehensible.

2. Who are these people who turn up at trials to boo and shout catcalls at defendants in high profile cases? Have they really got nothing better to do with their miserable lives?

3. How long is going to take before defendants are given anonymity before a trial? The reporting of the Nickell case led the public to believe Stagg was guilty before the trial even began. Look at the footballers who have been arrested but not charged with rape. Everyone knows them and their names have been tarnished with virtually no reason.

4. Lastly, wouldn't have been ironic if Stagg had gone to the police to tell them "Lizzie James" had murdered a woman and child in a Satanic ritual killing?

All in all a very disturbing programme. I can hope Stagg and Rachels family can find peace now.

No I didn't watch the program but knew about it's contents. I have kept an eye on this case since the early days as a brief in South London and even living in Wimbledon at the time of the offence. So many things I want to comment upon in this thread.

This was a high profile case and the police felt under pressure to get a result, they were weak and buckled under to the pressure. A "Senior Officer" saw the prime suspect and persuaded himself as to his guilt, didn't bother with Judge and Jury, and went ahead to try to prove his guilt by the most amazing means. That officer was not supported by all his staff I understand.

Sadly this is in the public eye because of the horrible nature of the offence itself. However what about the lower profile cases where you don't find out that the same happened time after time, i.e. and officer has decided as to guilt and tailored the evidence to fit his theories, it happens more than you think. Don't, of course, ask me for examples.

Just to make sure you don't sleep happily in your beds tonight I will also point out that since the Stagg case there has been legislation making it harder to check police actions. Furthermore Governments, especially this one, has passed more and more anti defence laws to ensure that the CPS have the upper hand in cases and they know that some innocent people will be convicted in an effort to keep as many baddies in custody as possible. A few years back we had a shortage of prison beds and new prisons were built and, guess what, they are now also full.

Regarding successful appellants having to pay for their keep from compensation, that is, I believe nationwide. However compensation is rare as there are many hoops to jump through to get this. A person who simply appeals a Guilty finding at trial and wins his appeal is not entitled to compensation, he has to rely on an appeal "out of time" and based on new evidence found after the trial, bearing in mind the law on disclosure has also been stiffened up against a defendant this is a rare event.

Thanks for that post Robert.

Is there a legal reason why suspects are named even before they are charged?

Some guy was charged or at least named in the Suffolk prostitutes murder case before they found the killer. Footballers Jonny Evans, Robin Van Persie, Steve Moran and I'm sure a couple of others have been named in rape cases but never reached court. It just seems ridiculously unfair.

It's always been the case that suspects, defendants and complainants can be mentioned by the press, however this freedom is fettered by legislation. For instance rape complainants can't be mentioned (doesn't extend to defendants) nor can juveniles be identified either as defendant, complainant or witness etc. The latter has been the case since at least 1933 but now the press are finding it easier to get courts to lift reporting restrictions so they can report on little Jimmy's ASBO. Courts also have jurisdiction to restrict press reporting on cases for various reasons.

So if the press want to name someone outside of the exceptions, and it sells papers, they will. It's great for papers to report on someone being arrested for rape or similar, it's a fact and they are immune from defamation actions. Stinks, doesn't it?

I recently had a debate with our local press as to how they enjoy reporting on people charged or just arrested but never happen to find enough space to report acquittals. In the past newspapers used to be transitory and the next day were fit only to be salt and vinegar soaked rags with which to wrap your chips, not now as the internet keeps reports up for search engines to find for an indefinite period. My local paper is also allowing reports to be commented upon, this allows the ill-informed to react to biased reporting and further influence other ill-informed sensation seekers.  (http://www.thisiscroydontoday.co.uk/latestnews)

[Colchester Kev]

LOL @ the peeping tom story ... this comment was genius !

I'm sorry but the absurdity of this story does make it comical. How do you 'become aware' that something was wrong? Presumably you see five hundred quid's-worth of Nikon sticking through your bathroom wall. You know, like yo do; happens all the time. I also see that the 'woman' in the opening paragraph defies the aging process by becoming a 'girl' by the fourth. As for those comedy names, Julius Capon? Are you sure? Is he by any chance related to Giles Guinea-Fowl (that'll be the Surrey Guinea-Fowls), Tarquin Arbuthnot-Blackfeatherturkey or Charles Farquharson-Capercaillie? Presumably the defendant is now Wailing Wall. What you might call a Wall to wall carpeting.
Max Wall, Wallsend

[bolt pp]

A truly shocking story of how an innocent man could get fitted up for a murder by the police who decided he was guilty without any evidence except for the fact he was a bit of loner with oddball beliefs.

A few things that came to mind after watching this programme:

1. The tabloid press are scum. To print Staggs picture next to the headline "No Girl is Safe" AFTER he was found not guilty was totally reprehensible.

2. Who are these people who turn up at trials to boo and shout catcalls at defendants in high profile cases? Have they really got nothing better to do with their miserable lives?

3. How long is going to take before defendants are given anonymity before a trial? The reporting of the Nickell case led the public to believe Stagg was guilty before the trial even began. Look at the footballers who have been arrested but not charged with rape. Everyone knows them and their names have been tarnished with virtually no reason.

4. Lastly, wouldn't have been ironic if Stagg had gone to the police to tell them "Lizzie James" had murdered a woman and child in a Satanic ritual killing?

All in all a very disturbing programme. I can hope Stagg and Rachels family can find peace now.

No I didn't watch the program but knew about it's contents. I have kept an eye on this case since the early days as a brief in South London and even living in Wimbledon at the time of the offence. So many things I want to comment upon in this thread.

This was a high profile case and the police felt under pressure to get a result, they were weak and buckled under to the pressure. A "Senior Officer" saw the prime suspect and persuaded himself as to his guilt, didn't bother with Judge and Jury, and went ahead to try to prove his guilt by the most amazing means. That officer was not supported by all his staff I understand.

Sadly this is in the public eye because of the horrible nature of the offence itself. However what about the lower profile cases where you don't find out that the same happened time after time, i.e. and officer has decided as to guilt and tailored the evidence to fit his theories, it happens more than you think. Don't, of course, ask me for examples.

Just to make sure you don't sleep happily in your beds tonight I will also point out that since the Stagg case there has been legislation making it harder to check police actions. Furthermore Governments, especially this one, has passed more and more anti defence laws to ensure that the CPS have the upper hand in cases and they know that some innocent people will be convicted in an effort to keep as many baddies in custody as possible. A few years back we had a shortage of prison beds and new prisons were built and, guess what, they are now also full.

Regarding successful appellants having to pay for their keep from compensation, that is, I believe nationwide. However compensation is rare as there are many hoops to jump through to get this. A person who simply appeals a Guilty finding at trial and wins his appeal is not entitled to compensation, he has to rely on an appeal "out of time" and based on new evidence found after the trial, bearing in mind the law on disclosure has also been stiffened up against a defendant this is a rare event.

Thanks for that post Robert.

Is there a legal reason why suspects are named even before they are charged?

Some guy was charged or at least named in the Suffolk prostitutes murder case before they found the killer. Footballers Jonny Evans, Robin Van Persie, Steve Moran and I'm sure a couple of others have been named in rape cases but never reached court. It just seems ridiculously unfair.

It's always been the case that suspects, defendants and complainants can be mentioned by the press, however this freedom is fettered by legislation. For instance rape complainants can't be mentioned (doesn't extend to defendants) nor can juveniles be identified either as defendant, complainant or witness etc. The latter has been the case since at least 1933 but now the press are finding it easier to get courts to lift reporting restrictions so they can report on little Jimmy's ASBO. Courts also have jurisdiction to restrict press reporting on cases for various reasons.

So if the press want to name someone outside of the exceptions, and it sells papers, they will. It's great for papers to report on someone being arrested for rape or similar, it's a fact and they are immune from defamation actions. Stinks, doesn't it?

I recently had a debate with our local press as to how they enjoy reporting on people charged or just arrested but never happen to find enough space to report acquittals. In the past newspapers used to be transitory and the next day were fit only to be salt and vinegar soaked rags with which to wrap your chips, not now as the internet keeps reports up for search engines to find for an indefinite period. My local paper is also allowing reports to be commented upon, this allows the ill-informed to react to biased reporting and further influence other ill-informed sensation seekers.  (http://www.thisiscroydontoday.co.uk/latestnews)

didnt the guy they thought was responsible for maddeline mcanns dissapearence get a settlement from several different papers?

[Div]

didnt the guy they thought was responsible for maddeline mcanns dissapearence get a settlement from several different papers?

A big settlement. Over a million in total I think.

[Robert HM]

didnt the guy they thought was responsible for maddeline mcanns dissapearence get a settlement from several different papers?

A big settlement. Over a million in total I think.

Yes, they reported far more than the facts. One reporter referred to the whole episode as a "feeding frenzy", editors simply ignored defamation law and circulations were hitting new levels. I wonder if the papers made more in advertising income than they paid out in damages, I hazard a guess they did ok for themselves.

[Robert HM]

LOL @ the peeping tom story ... this comment was genius !

I'm sorry but the absurdity of this story does make it comical. How do you 'become aware' that something was wrong? Presumably you see five hundred quid's-worth of Nikon sticking through your bathroom wall. You know, like yo do; happens all the time. I also see that the 'woman' in the opening paragraph defies the aging process by becoming a 'girl' by the fourth. As for those comedy names, Julius Capon? Are you sure? Is he by any chance related to Giles Guinea-Fowl (that'll be the Surrey Guinea-Fowls), Tarquin Arbuthnot-Blackfeatherturkey or Charles Farquharson-Capercaillie? Presumably the defendant is now Wailing Wall. What you might call a Wall to wall carpeting.
Max Wall, Wallsend

Thanks, I didn't see that before, I know Julius and you can expect he'll see this soon