NYGman wrote:Just a thought, do you think he actually paid those expenses, or did he use credit, borrow, or have friends pay? If so, wouldn't he have to pay all that he received back to those that lent? If he didn't, is he just screwing more people. And if the amount did go to repay expenses he actually incurred, then he is no better of than when he started, it isn't like he can create money, as he isn't a bank.
I think it's done as a sort of flat rate accounting by the court. It's to pay for the time he spent 'working' on his defence. The court will have very simple rules for this sort of thing. James was paid a lot less than a solicitor on legal aid would have been, although it may be of interest to some that the members of the jury would have received roughly twice as much to compensate them for their lost earnings (when I last was on a Jury I was paid over £1,500 for the three day trial and all I needed to do was not fall asleep during the boring bits or do too much of a Burnaby at lunch).
Jay might be slighter better off, he might not be, however it would not be a clever get rich quick scheme to keep getting yourself arrested in order to make £800 from each trial.
In regard to Jay's claim to have received compensation, this is highly doubtful. The system for one doesn't work like that. Compensation for wrongful arrest and remand is pretty rare and also very swingeing (it's the government and for some reason they try to avoid giving money to
wrongfully convicted criminals). All decisions on compensation are made by the Home Secretary, and applications must be made in writing - no word if Crayon is acceptable - it would then be considered.
This would be an ex gratia payment, which is a fancy way of saying, here's some money although we aren't saying we did anything wrong. These are only awarded in exceptional cases. A cursory google, threw up a thread debating the issue of compensation for those wrongly remanded which included one man's account of a period when he was held on an attempted murder and robbery charge, which collapsed due to a total lack of evidence, to add insult to injury the woman who he states made the accusations apparently had a history of making false allegations to the police.
http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?t=2062380
Generally in order for a remand to give rise to compensation their must be some wrongdoing on the part of the police. This wasn't established by the trial, in fact all that was established was that the CPS in Nottingham is rather inept and the charges brought weren't really supported by the evidence.
Finally if Jay did get a compensation payment, I am quite sure that he would be able to post up a picture of the accompanying details and cheque, suitably redacted of course (although one hopes not at the expense of another one of his precious Crayons), to provide proof.
