You must pay for your shackles and chains even if you're innocent

For the wrongly jailed, there is no Shawshank Redemption ending

The vindictive Home Office has prolonged the agony of miscarriage of justice victims, says John McManus
John McManus
Thursday March 22, 2007

Guardian
Your article stated that "Two men who spent more than 12 years in jail for a murder they did not commit must pay the 'living expenses' they incurred in prison from their compensation" (Wrongly jailed cousins must pay 'expenses', March 15).

As the project coordinator for the Miscarriages of Justice Organisation, I would like to point out that this case, on which the Lords ruled last week, wasn't just about two men, but was a test-case challenge about all those who have suffered a miscarriage of justice. It is now 16 years since the release of our founder, Paddy Hill, of the Birmingham Six. Most public perception about these cases is of a Shawshank Redemption ending, where the acquitted sail off into the sunset. The reality is quite the opposite, as the tragic death of Sally Clark shows.

Paddy himself would have been the plaintiff in the Lords' case, were it not for the fact that if he had fought his compensation award when it was offered six years ago, none of his co-accused would have received anything, and three of them were in their 70s. When he was finally compensated, 10 years after his release, the Home Office deducted £90,000 interest on the interim payments - as if they were a loan - and then took off more than £50,000 on "saved living expenses". This is when we first realised how petty and vindictive the Home Office could be.

In last week's ruling, Lord Brown stated that "to award them their loss of earnings without taking these expenses into account would be to over compensate them". This man needs a reality check: there is no amount of money that could "over compensate" for wrongful imprisonment. Only Lord Rodger dissented, likening the mens' incarceration to a "prolonged kidnapping". The other four law lords' legal position doesn't take into account the long-term damage caused by poor diet, as well as the physical and mental torture inflicted because of the wrongful incarceration.

It is also sickening that the government-appointed assessors only compensated for losses by looking at employment history before these men went into prison. For example, Robert Brown was only 18 in 1977, and had only worked for nine months of the year running up to his false imprisonment. He will only receive the minimal manual non-skilled rate, and for just nine months for each of the 25 years they kept him behind bars. The assessor would not consider the possibility that he might have gone back into further education, or got a promotion.

This kind of assessment locks miscarriage victims into another legal battle which can take years - a psychological wringer which prevents them from reaching closure, and moving on with their shattered lives. Last week's judgment means that Robert will be looking at a bill between £100,000-150,000 for his 25 years' imprisoned living expenses.

It is now more than 12 years since I ran into Paddy Hill on a tube train, where he told me about the psychological horrors that had plagued him since his release. There was no counselling available to them, and no specialised counselling has yet been offered to the 200-odd high profile miscarriage victims in the 18 years since the release of the Guildford Four. We are now trying to raise funds to help counsel these innocent men and women, who have had their lives ripped apart, and try and help them put their lives back together.

· John McManus is co-founder of the Miscarriages of Justice Organisation
mojoscotland.com
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007