The jury didn't get it wrong in this case. So, any debate about the efficacy or proficiency of jurors in this case, is misplaced. The judge didn't get it wrong. The prosecution built and brought forward a convoluted case of mainly circumstantial evidence.
He was convicted because: - The jury was given evidence of his confession - The jury was presented with bite mark evidence, "scientifically" linked to him - The jury wasn't given an alibi for his whereabouts at the time of the murder
Given that set of evidence, a 10-2 guilty verdict was unsurprising.
There is no proof that exculpatory evidence was not disclosed to the defence. But, Merseyside Police need to answer for some of their failings, such as the lack of diligence in going after other sustpects, the flawed (but, at the time, lawful) interrogation.
But, given the fact that the case was built on evidence, the evidence was presented in court, the jury examined the evidence and came up with a verdict and the judge handed down a sentence commensurate with the verdict, then, as harsh as it seems, I don't see why a compensation should be paid.
Had the evidence been treated, examined and judged on today's standards, I have no doubt he would have been found not guilty. But the case was held correctly as the rules existed at the time.
I hope Peter Sullivan goes on to live a long, healthy and happy life. I hope he's able to tell his story - and to cash in spectacularly if he wants to. I hope Merseyside Police are investigated to the fullest possible extent for their failings. And I hope that Diane Sindall's surviving family get the chance to see the real culprit brought to justice.
Finally, this case should demonstrate the dangers of re-opening the closed debate about the death penalty. Peter Sullivan's name should be enough to shut down any argument to bring back hanging.
You don’t see why compensation should be paid? Wow.
I could be persuaded. Is there a reasonable argument that he should be compensated, despite no individual, group or entity having done anything wrong?
Let me put it this way: he should be compensated if the state, or any of its representatives, have broken the law. That didn't happen. What has happened is that someone we thought was guilty has been able, through science, to demonstrate his innocence and therefore, rightly and immediately, freed from prison.
It's a wrong conviction, as opposed to a wrongful conviction.
Other than "wow", do you have a persuasive argument that he should receive compensation? And, if so, whom are you regarding as the party guilty to his unlawful conviction?
Maybe this will be persuasive in the compensation argument.
It turns out that Peter Sullivan asked the Criminal Cases Review Commission to explore potential DNA evidence that could clear him. That was in 2008, seventeen long years ago. In 2008 DNA investigating and technology was pretty well advanced, and it could possibly have been recognised and given a go in the case of Peter Sullivan, especially because not a shred of his DNA had been used to convict him in the first place. So it is certainly possible to argue that DNA stuff was in its infancy in 1987, so the conviction met whatever criteria, criteria that we now know to have been wrong anyway, and that was all that was known back then. I would suggest though, that from 2008 to 2025 at least was a period of unnecessary imprisonment, and Peter Sullivan deserves compensation for that. And he asked again in 2019....which was denied!
I doubt he is either physically or mentally well after serving that amount of time in prison. Despite what many think they know about life behind bars they are often very wrong. Pay the man some money and give him a place to live out the few remaining years in peace (82ish is the average what you can expect if healthy and the last ones are not going to be the best ones). I wonder if he is even entitled to a state pension, I believe you have to pay in 35 qualifying years. He won't have a private pension either, he is financially screwed. His life has been truly wasted by those whos job it was and is to see the right people convicted. Terrible to think if his conviction was 20 years previous, no one outside his close family would of cared but it would have been another case closed.
The jury didn't get it wrong in this case. So, any debate about the efficacy or proficiency of jurors in this case, is misplaced. The judge didn't get it wrong. The prosecution built and brought forward a convoluted case of mainly circumstantial evidence.
He was convicted because: - The jury was given evidence of his confession - The jury was presented with bite mark evidence, "scientifically" linked to him - The jury wasn't given an alibi for his whereabouts at the time of the murder
Given that set of evidence, a 10-2 guilty verdict was unsurprising.
There is no proof that exculpatory evidence was not disclosed to the defence. But, Merseyside Police need to answer for some of their failings, such as the lack of diligence in going after other sustpects, the flawed (but, at the time, lawful) interrogation.
But, given the fact that the case was built on evidence, the evidence was presented in court, the jury examined the evidence and came up with a verdict and the judge handed down a sentence commensurate with the verdict, then, as harsh as it seems, I don't see why a compensation should be paid.
Had the evidence been treated, examined and judged on today's standards, I have no doubt he would have been found not guilty. But the case was held correctly as the rules existed at the time.
I hope Peter Sullivan goes on to live a long, healthy and happy life. I hope he's able to tell his story - and to cash in spectacularly if he wants to. I hope Merseyside Police are investigated to the fullest possible extent for their failings. And I hope that Diane Sindall's surviving family get the chance to see the real culprit brought to justice.
Finally, this case should demonstrate the dangers of re-opening the closed debate about the death penalty. Peter Sullivan's name should be enough to shut down any argument to bring back hanging.
You don’t see why compensation should be paid? Wow.
I could be persuaded. Is there a reasonable argument that he should be compensated, despite no individual, group or entity having done anything wrong?
Let me put it this way: he should be compensated if the state, or any of its representatives, have broken the law. That didn't happen. What has happened is that someone we thought was guilty has been able, through science, to demonstrate his innocence and therefore, rightly and immediately, freed from prison.
It's a wrong conviction, as opposed to a wrongful conviction.
Other than "wow", do you have a persuasive argument that he should receive compensation? And, if so, whom are you regarding as the party guilty to his unlawful conviction?
Well for one the "confession" should never have stood as evidence:
"He was arrested for murder on 23 September after he gave officers a number of "completely different" accounts of his movements.
The next day, court documents show Sullivan broke down in tears under questioning and "confessed" to the murder.
He withdrew the apparent confession later that day, but reinstated it soon afterwards.
Sullivan had not been given access to legal advice by that point. It had been withheld on the grounds that it would have caused a "hindrance to the enquiry".
When he was given access to a solicitor on 25 September, he retracted his confessions and told police he had made them up."
So a very confused and worried man with absolutely none of the legal advice he is entitled to makes and then withdraws a confession. That sounds pretty dodgy to me.
The only other "proof" was bite marks that are increasingly seen as unreliable.
So yeah, given all the "evidence" is highly debatable AT BEST, and cost him 40 years of his life, compensation is absolutely deserved.
Maybe this will be persuasive in the compensation argument.
It turns out that Peter Sullivan asked the Criminal Cases Review Commission to explore potential DNA evidence that could clear him. That was in 2008, seventeen long years ago. In 2008 DNA investigating and technology was pretty well advanced, and it could possibly have been recognised and given a go in the case of Peter Sullivan, especially because not a shred of his DNA had been used to convict him in the first place. So it is certainly possible to argue that DNA stuff was in its infancy in 1987, so the conviction met whatever criteria, criteria that we now know to have been wrong anyway, and that was all that was known back then. I would suggest though, that from 2008 to 2025 at least was a period of unnecessary imprisonment, and Peter Sullivan deserves compensation for that. And he asked again in 2019....which was denied!
That's persuasive. It would be interesting to know what the basis of the CCRC's decision was, at that time. Maybe there should be a judicial review on that decision.
I don't think the science was developed, established and robust enough in 2008 for the DNA evidence to support an appeal. But, by 2021 the science had advanced, the CCRC allowed his reapplication for review and supported the findings so that an appeal could proceed.
The CCRC's 2008 decision was based on the expert advice available at the time. But hindsight and advancements in forensic science indicate that this decision may have been a missed opportunity to rectify a grave miscarriage of justice sooner.
Lock an innocent man up for 38 years and he shouldn't be compensated! You couldn't make it up. Or is it plain trolling? Yep and I've bitten.
Had an innocent man been locked up, then, of course, he should be compensated.
But, in 1987, he was convicted. He wasn't - in the eyes of the law - "an innocent man". He was found guilty - one of many men found guilty of something he had not done. Subsequently, his conviction has been overturned. He's rightly been freed.
This man - a victim of an horrendous miscarriage of justice - has, this week, been gifted the one thing he most wanted. Far more than money, or fame, or anything else. It's right that he's been let out. He deserves all the help and support that can and should be offered to him. But, in terms of compensation, I think that should be linked to wrong-doing. I don't think anyone has acted "wrong" in the whole process. It's a terrible, regrettable, unfortunate consequence of an imperfect justice system. But I think it's the best we can come up with.
Lock an innocent man up for 38 years and he shouldn't be compensated! You couldn't make it up. Or is it plain trolling? Yep and I've bitten.
Had an innocent man been locked up, then, of course, he should be compensated.
But, in 1987, he was convicted. He wasn't - in the eyes of the law - "an innocent man". He was found guilty - one of many men found guilty of something he had not done. Subsequently, his conviction has been overturned. He's rightly been freed.
This man - a victim of an horrendous miscarriage of justice - has, this week, been gifted the one thing he most wanted. Far more than money, or fame, or anything else. It's right that he's been let out. He deserves all the help and support that can and should be offered to him. But, in terms of compensation, I think that should be linked to wrong-doing. I don't think anyone has acted "wrong" in the whole process. It's a terrible, regrettable, unfortunate consequence of an imperfect justice system. But I think it's the best we can come up with.
Well the police HAVE demonstrably done something wrong - they denied him the legal aid he was entitled to have then used a confession that was later retracted as "proof."
Lock an innocent man up for 38 years and he shouldn't be compensated! You couldn't make it up. Or is it plain trolling? Yep and I've bitten.
Had an innocent man been locked up, then, of course, he should be compensated.
But, in 1987, he was convicted. He wasn't - in the eyes of the law - "an innocent man". He was found guilty - one of many men found guilty of something he had not done. Subsequently, his conviction has been overturned. He's rightly been freed.
This man - a victim of an horrendous miscarriage of justice - has, this week, been gifted the one thing he most wanted. Far more than money, or fame, or anything else. It's right that he's been let out. He deserves all the help and support that can and should be offered to him. But, in terms of compensation, I think that should be linked to wrong-doing. I don't think anyone has acted "wrong" in the whole process. It's a terrible, regrettable, unfortunate consequence of an imperfect justice system. But I think it's the best we can come up with.
Well the police HAVE demonstrably done something wrong - they denied him the legal aid he was entitled to have then used a confession that was later retracted as "proof."
That's pretty clearly wrong doing.
I didn't know about any Legal Aid to which he was entitled. But if a suspect makes a confession, even if he later retracts it, surely the police are duty bound to present that as evidence and have it tested by the defence, no?
He should have been protected under PACE. And, as I said earlier, Merseyside Police have a lot of questions to answer.
But the evidence of his confession being presented at court means that the CPS allowed the evidence, the judge allowed the evidence, the defence has the opportunity to challenge the evidence and the jury believed it.
And I can see why a jury, being presented with a confession, were able to believe it.
Lock an innocent man up for 38 years and he shouldn't be compensated! You couldn't make it up. Or is it plain trolling? Yep and I've bitten.
Had an innocent man been locked up, then, of course, he should be compensated.
But, in 1987, he was convicted. He wasn't - in the eyes of the law - "an innocent man". He was found guilty - one of many men found guilty of something he had not done. Subsequently, his conviction has been overturned. He's rightly been freed.
This man - a victim of an horrendous miscarriage of justice - has, this week, been gifted the one thing he most wanted. Far more than money, or fame, or anything else. It's right that he's been let out. He deserves all the help and support that can and should be offered to him. But, in terms of compensation, I think that should be linked to wrong-doing. I don't think anyone has acted "wrong" in the whole process. It's a terrible, regrettable, unfortunate consequence of an imperfect justice system. But I think it's the best we can come up with.
Lock an innocent man up for 38 years and he shouldn't be compensated! You couldn't make it up. Or is it plain trolling? Yep and I've bitten.
Had an innocent man been locked up, then, of course, he should be compensated.
But, in 1987, he was convicted. He wasn't - in the eyes of the law - "an innocent man". He was found guilty - one of many men found guilty of something he had not done. Subsequently, his conviction has been overturned. He's rightly been freed.
This man - a victim of an horrendous miscarriage of justice - has, this week, been gifted the one thing he most wanted. Far more than money, or fame, or anything else. It's right that he's been let out. He deserves all the help and support that can and should be offered to him. But, in terms of compensation, I think that should be linked to wrong-doing. I don't think anyone has acted "wrong" in the whole process. It's a terrible, regrettable, unfortunate consequence of an imperfect justice system. But I think it's the best we can come up with.
To find an innocent man guilty of a crime he didn't commit, and pleaded not guilty to, and to then lock him away for 38 years in prison, constitutes a miscarriage of justice of some sort. The verdict has been proven to be wrong, regardless of how right it might have seemed at the time. The maximum compensation award is set at £1m under the Criminal Justice Act 1988.
I've been fortunate that my employers have always been very supportive of jury service and have never kicked up a fuss about paying me or asking me to defer etc. For self-employed people, single parents etc I can imagine it being horrendous. And there's always the possibility of a long and/or complex trial. One occasion at Southwark, the jury in the court next to ours had been on their case for 8 months!
The trail you mention that had been on for 8 months is a prime example why the system is flawed. Like others have said when I did jury service (it was a serious trial with massive implications to the accused in terms of prison time) 4 of the jury was quite open in saying they would go with whatever the majority thought. The trial only lasted 3 weeks but honestly that was a stretch on the attention span for most of the jury. 8 months must have been a complicated trial and I suggest well beyond a lot of people’s people. Plus of course the interruption of their lives for 8 months. I agree we should have professional jury’s taken from a cross section of people but they have to apply and be interviewed like any other job
Lock an innocent man up for 38 years and he shouldn't be compensated! You couldn't make it up. Or is it plain trolling? Yep and I've bitten.
Had an innocent man been locked up, then, of course, he should be compensated.
But, in 1987, he was convicted. He wasn't - in the eyes of the law - "an innocent man". He was found guilty - one of many men found guilty of something he had not done. Subsequently, his conviction has been overturned. He's rightly been freed.
This man - a victim of an horrendous miscarriage of justice - has, this week, been gifted the one thing he most wanted. Far more than money, or fame, or anything else. It's right that he's been let out. He deserves all the help and support that can and should be offered to him. But, in terms of compensation, I think that should be linked to wrong-doing. I don't think anyone has acted "wrong" in the whole process. It's a terrible, regrettable, unfortunate consequence of an imperfect justice system. But I think it's the best we can come up with.
Well the police HAVE demonstrably done something wrong - they denied him the legal aid he was entitled to have then used a confession that was later retracted as "proof."
That's pretty clearly wrong doing.
I didn't know about any Legal Aid to which he was entitled. But if a suspect makes a confession, even if he later retracts it, surely the police are duty bound to present that as evidence and have it tested by the defence, no?
He should have been protected under PACE. And, as I said earlier, Merseyside Police have a lot of questions to answer.
But the evidence of his confession being presented at court means that the CPS allowed the evidence, the judge allowed the evidence, the defence has the opportunity to challenge the evidence and the jury believed it.
And I can see why a jury, being presented with a confession, were able to believe it.
No. He was interrogated for over 24 hours without a solicitor - which he specifically asked for and was denied. He didn't waive the right. The police told him he couldn't have one, which was not true.
Therefore the confession was never a valid one as there is no proof it was given freely instead of being forced or coerced. As soon as he DID get legal support he retracted the confession and it should become inadmissible.
Lock an innocent man up for 38 years and he shouldn't be compensated! You couldn't make it up. Or is it plain trolling? Yep and I've bitten.
Had an innocent man been locked up, then, of course, he should be compensated.
But, in 1987, he was convicted. He wasn't - in the eyes of the law - "an innocent man". He was found guilty - one of many men found guilty of something he had not done. Subsequently, his conviction has been overturned. He's rightly been freed.
This man - a victim of an horrendous miscarriage of justice - has, this week, been gifted the one thing he most wanted. Far more than money, or fame, or anything else. It's right that he's been let out. He deserves all the help and support that can and should be offered to him. But, in terms of compensation, I think that should be linked to wrong-doing. I don't think anyone has acted "wrong" in the whole process. It's a terrible, regrettable, unfortunate consequence of an imperfect justice system. But I think it's the best we can come up with.
Well the police HAVE demonstrably done something wrong - they denied him the legal aid he was entitled to have then used a confession that was later retracted as "proof."
That's pretty clearly wrong doing.
I didn't know about any Legal Aid to which he was entitled. But if a suspect makes a confession, even if he later retracts it, surely the police are duty bound to present that as evidence and have it tested by the defence, no?
He should have been protected under PACE. And, as I said earlier, Merseyside Police have a lot of questions to answer.
But the evidence of his confession being presented at court means that the CPS allowed the evidence, the judge allowed the evidence, the defence has the opportunity to challenge the evidence and the jury believed it.
And I can see why a jury, being presented with a confession, were able to believe it.
No. He was interrogated for over 24 hours without a solicitor - which he specifically asked for and was denied. He didn't waive the right. The police told him he couldn't have one, which was not true.
Therefore the confession was never a valid one as there is no proof it was given freely instead of being forced or coerced. As soon as he DID get legal support he retracted the confession and it should become inadmissible.
But the police, CPS, prosecution, Judge and defence don't seem to have agreed with that.
Lock an innocent man up for 38 years and he shouldn't be compensated! You couldn't make it up. Or is it plain trolling? Yep and I've bitten.
Had an innocent man been locked up, then, of course, he should be compensated.
But, in 1987, he was convicted. He wasn't - in the eyes of the law - "an innocent man". He was found guilty - one of many men found guilty of something he had not done. Subsequently, his conviction has been overturned. He's rightly been freed.
This man - a victim of an horrendous miscarriage of justice - has, this week, been gifted the one thing he most wanted. Far more than money, or fame, or anything else. It's right that he's been let out. He deserves all the help and support that can and should be offered to him. But, in terms of compensation, I think that should be linked to wrong-doing. I don't think anyone has acted "wrong" in the whole process. It's a terrible, regrettable, unfortunate consequence of an imperfect justice system. But I think it's the best we can come up with.
Well the police HAVE demonstrably done something wrong - they denied him the legal aid he was entitled to have then used a confession that was later retracted as "proof."
That's pretty clearly wrong doing.
I didn't know about any Legal Aid to which he was entitled. But if a suspect makes a confession, even if he later retracts it, surely the police are duty bound to present that as evidence and have it tested by the defence, no?
He should have been protected under PACE. And, as I said earlier, Merseyside Police have a lot of questions to answer.
But the evidence of his confession being presented at court means that the CPS allowed the evidence, the judge allowed the evidence, the defence has the opportunity to challenge the evidence and the jury believed it.
And I can see why a jury, being presented with a confession, were able to believe it.
No. He was interrogated for over 24 hours without a solicitor - which he specifically asked for and was denied. He didn't waive the right. The police told him he couldn't have one, which was not true.
Therefore the confession was never a valid one as there is no proof it was given freely instead of being forced or coerced. As soon as he DID get legal support he retracted the confession and it should become inadmissible.
But the police, CPS, prosecution, Judge and defence don't seem to have agreed with that.
Yeah. That's exactly why it's a miscarriage of justice. The people who should have done their jobs didn't and an innocent person was jailed.
This hasn't become wrong since it happened. It was wrong then too.
Quite frankly a serious travesty of justice, not the first and won't be the last. Jury should be IQ tested to check they are up to the job. Compensation should be large but takes so long to sort out I suspect he will get no benefit from it.
The accused was interviewed without representation or a responsible/competent adult present, these facts were withheld by the prosecution. The accused is alleged by the prosecution to have made 'confessions' in those early 'interviews'. The accused has no alibi which can be corroborated (see also Andy Malkinson). No level of experience or qualification of the jury is going to overcome that degree of unfairness. Juries can only appraise the information they are given.
Sullivan was fitted up. Plod may well have genuinely believed he'd done it but there was only circumstantial evidence and a purported confession from a 'highly suggestible' suspect. There was no mistake, due process was abused. No doubt everybody involved in fitting him up has long enjoyed their guilt edged pensions and of course their freedom.
The DNA technology available today is very different from what was available 38 years ago. The DNA technology which dismantled his conviction has been available for nearly a decade, yet the CCRC only agreed to look at the case in 2021. Even then, their 'review' has taken nearly 4 years. Delay always defeats justice. The only chink of light in this disgraceful episode, is that the biological material secured at the scene was preserved sufficiently well that conclusive DNA evidence could still be extracted 38 years later.
Sullivan's compensation should equal no less than the pensions paid to everybody who abused due process to get him fitted up. And none of this deductions bullshit for providing "board and lodging" for 38 years.
Lock an innocent man up for 38 years and he shouldn't be compensated! You couldn't make it up. Or is it plain trolling? Yep and I've bitten.
Had an innocent man been locked up, then, of course, he should be compensated.
But, in 1987, he was convicted. He wasn't - in the eyes of the law - "an innocent man". He was found guilty - one of many men found guilty of something he had not done. Subsequently, his conviction has been overturned. He's rightly been freed.
This man - a victim of an horrendous miscarriage of justice - has, this week, been gifted the one thing he most wanted. Far more than money, or fame, or anything else. It's right that he's been let out. He deserves all the help and support that can and should be offered to him. But, in terms of compensation, I think that should be linked to wrong-doing. I don't think anyone has acted "wrong" in the whole process. It's a terrible, regrettable, unfortunate consequence of an imperfect justice system. But I think it's the best we can come up with.
Well the police HAVE demonstrably done something wrong - they denied him the legal aid he was entitled to have then used a confession that was later retracted as "proof."
That's pretty clearly wrong doing.
I didn't know about any Legal Aid to which he was entitled. But if a suspect makes a confession, even if he later retracts it, surely the police are duty bound to present that as evidence and have it tested by the defence, no?
He should have been protected under PACE. And, as I said earlier, Merseyside Police have a lot of questions to answer.
But the evidence of his confession being presented at court means that the CPS allowed the evidence, the judge allowed the evidence, the defence has the opportunity to challenge the evidence and the jury believed it.
And I can see why a jury, being presented with a confession, were able to believe it.
No. He was interrogated for over 24 hours without a solicitor - which he specifically asked for and was denied. He didn't waive the right. The police told him he couldn't have one, which was not true.
Therefore the confession was never a valid one as there is no proof it was given freely instead of being forced or coerced. As soon as he DID get legal support he retracted the confession and it should become inadmissible.
But the police, CPS, prosecution, Judge and defence don't seem to have agreed with that.
Yeah. That's exactly why it's a miscarriage of justice. The people who should have done their jobs didn't and an innocent person was jailed.
This hasn't become wrong since it happened. It was wrong then too.
Agreed. Counsel for prosecution were able to prove to a jury that he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt then, the burden of proof being on them as he was innocent until proven guilty, so they did their job. However, counsel for the defence were representing an innocent man, yet couldn't put together a defence that cast sufficient doubt in the minds of the jurors about his guilt. They can't be free from blame.
I've been fortunate that my employers have always been very supportive of jury service and have never kicked up a fuss about paying me or asking me to defer etc. For self-employed people, single parents etc I can imagine it being horrendous. And there's always the possibility of a long and/or complex trial. One occasion at Southwark, the jury in the court next to ours had been on their case for 8 months!
As a self-employed person who was required to give evidence in a trial, compensation for lost earnings and expenses were not slow to be paid. I doubt that payments to jurors would be dealt with any more slowly.
The jury didn't get it wrong in this case. So, any debate about the efficacy or proficiency of jurors in this case, is misplaced. The judge didn't get it wrong. The prosecution built and brought forward a convoluted case of mainly circumstantial evidence.
He was convicted because: - The jury was given evidence of his confession - The jury was presented with bite mark evidence, "scientifically" linked to him - The jury wasn't given an alibi for his whereabouts at the time of the murder
Given that set of evidence, a 10-2 guilty verdict was unsurprising.
There is no proof that exculpatory evidence was not disclosed to the defence. But, Merseyside Police need to answer for some of their failings, such as the lack of diligence in going after other sustpects, the flawed (but, at the time, lawful) interrogation.
But, given the fact that the case was built on evidence, the evidence was presented in court, the jury examined the evidence and came up with a verdict and the judge handed down a sentence commensurate with the verdict, then, as harsh as it seems, I don't see why a compensation should be paid.
Had the evidence been treated, examined and judged on today's standards, I have no doubt he would have been found not guilty. But the case was held correctly as the rules existed at the time.
I hope Peter Sullivan goes on to live a long, healthy and happy life. I hope he's able to tell his story - and to cash in spectacularly if he wants to. I hope Merseyside Police are investigated to the fullest possible extent for their failings. And I hope that Diane Sindall's surviving family get the chance to see the real culprit brought to justice.
Finally, this case should demonstrate the dangers of re-opening the closed debate about the death penalty. Peter Sullivan's name should be enough to shut down any argument to bring back hanging.
Fuck me, you REALLY don't hope yourself sometimes, do you?
I don't think we need to be rocket scientists to work out the confession must have been obtained under duress. Why? Well he retracted it straight away and here is the big one, he was innocent. He absolutely deserves compensation. He has been deprived of years where he could have worked to make his later years more comfortable.
It reads to me that chizz has made an argument about what seemed to be the context at the time of conviction. As such it can be responded to. It certainly does not look like the contribution of a troll or a gtp to me.
It reads to me that chizz has made an argument about what seemed to be the context at the time of conviction. As such it can be responded to. It certainly does not look like the contribution of a troll or a gtp to me.
You've been on CL a few weeks. I've been on here since 2007.
Comments
Let me put it this way: he should be compensated if the state, or any of its representatives, have broken the law. That didn't happen. What has happened is that someone we thought was guilty has been able, through science, to demonstrate his innocence and therefore, rightly and immediately, freed from prison.
It's a wrong conviction, as opposed to a wrongful conviction.
Other than "wow", do you have a persuasive argument that he should receive compensation? And, if so, whom are you regarding as the party guilty to his unlawful conviction?
It turns out that Peter Sullivan asked the Criminal Cases Review Commission to explore potential DNA evidence that could clear him.
That was in 2008, seventeen long years ago.
In 2008 DNA investigating and technology was pretty well advanced, and it could possibly have been recognised and given a go in the case of Peter Sullivan, especially because not a shred of his DNA had been used to convict him in the first place.
So it is certainly possible to argue that DNA stuff was in its infancy in 1987, so the conviction met whatever criteria, criteria that we now know to have been wrong anyway, and that was all that was known back then.
I would suggest though, that from 2008 to 2025 at least was a period of unnecessary imprisonment, and Peter Sullivan deserves compensation for that.
And he asked again in 2019....which was denied!
Pay the man some money and give him a place to live out the few remaining years in peace (82ish is the average what you can expect if healthy and the last ones are not going to be the best ones). I wonder if he is even entitled to a state pension, I believe you have to pay in 35 qualifying years. He won't have a private pension either, he is financially screwed.
His life has been truly wasted by those whos job it was and is to see the right people convicted. Terrible to think if his conviction was 20 years previous, no one outside his close family would of cared but it would have been another case closed.
You couldn't make it up.
Or is it plain trolling?
Yep and I've bitten.
"He was arrested for murder on 23 September after he gave officers a number of "completely different" accounts of his movements.
The next day, court documents show Sullivan broke down in tears under questioning and "confessed" to the murder.
He withdrew the apparent confession later that day, but reinstated it soon afterwards.
Sullivan had not been given access to legal advice by that point. It had been withheld on the grounds that it would have caused a "hindrance to the enquiry".
When he was given access to a solicitor on 25 September, he retracted his confessions and told police he had made them up."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cde24zj6y69o
So a very confused and worried man with absolutely none of the legal advice he is entitled to makes and then withdraws a confession. That sounds pretty dodgy to me.
The only other "proof" was bite marks that are increasingly seen as unreliable.
So yeah, given all the "evidence" is highly debatable AT BEST, and cost him 40 years of his life, compensation is absolutely deserved.
I don't think the science was developed, established and robust enough in 2008 for the DNA evidence to support an appeal. But, by 2021 the science had advanced, the CCRC allowed his reapplication for review and supported the findings so that an appeal could proceed.
The CCRC's 2008 decision was based on the expert advice available at the time. But hindsight and advancements in forensic science indicate that this decision may have been a missed opportunity to rectify a grave miscarriage of justice sooner.
But, in 1987, he was convicted. He wasn't - in the eyes of the law - "an innocent man". He was found guilty - one of many men found guilty of something he had not done. Subsequently, his conviction has been overturned. He's rightly been freed.
This man - a victim of an horrendous miscarriage of justice - has, this week, been gifted the one thing he most wanted. Far more than money, or fame, or anything else. It's right that he's been let out. He deserves all the help and support that can and should be offered to him. But, in terms of compensation, I think that should be linked to wrong-doing. I don't think anyone has acted "wrong" in the whole process. It's a terrible, regrettable, unfortunate consequence of an imperfect justice system. But I think it's the best we can come up with.
That's pretty clearly wrong doing.
He should have been protected under PACE. And, as I said earlier, Merseyside Police have a lot of questions to answer.
But the evidence of his confession being presented at court means that the CPS allowed the evidence, the judge allowed the evidence, the defence has the opportunity to challenge the evidence and the jury believed it.
And I can see why a jury, being presented with a confession, were able to believe it.
Therefore the confession was never a valid one as there is no proof it was given freely instead of being forced or coerced. As soon as he DID get legal support he retracted the confession and it should become inadmissible.
This hasn't become wrong since it happened. It was wrong then too.
Sullivan was fitted up. Plod may well have genuinely believed he'd done it but there was only circumstantial evidence and a purported confession from a 'highly suggestible' suspect. There was no mistake, due process was abused. No doubt everybody involved in fitting him up has long enjoyed their guilt edged pensions and of course their freedom.
The DNA technology available today is very different from what was available 38 years ago. The DNA technology which dismantled his conviction has been available for nearly a decade, yet the CCRC only agreed to look at the case in 2021. Even then, their 'review' has taken nearly 4 years. Delay always defeats justice. The only chink of light in this disgraceful episode, is that the biological material secured at the scene was preserved sufficiently well that conclusive DNA evidence could still be extracted 38 years later.
Sullivan's compensation should equal no less than the pensions paid to everybody who abused due process to get him fitted up. And none of this deductions bullshit for providing "board and lodging" for 38 years.
I doubt that payments to jurors would be dealt with any more slowly.
I've been on here since 2007.