Not a penny for British man acquitted after six years in jail

"Innocent until proven guilty" does not apply in Britain, apparently. British law really has deteriorated

Sion Jenkins has been refused compensation for the six years he spent in jail accused of murdering his foster daughter. The former deputy headmaster had sought up to £500,000 damages for the prison term he served before he was acquitted over Billie-Jo’s death.

But although Mr Jenkins said he fitted ‘all the criteria’ for a payout, the Ministry of Justice rejected his request after officials assessed the case.

Rules state that applicants for miscarriage of justice compensation must show they are ‘clearly innocent’ if they are to receive money.

The snub, confirmed by informed sources, is a major setback for Mr Jenkins, who has always protested his innocence. He was initially found guilty in 1998 of 13-year-old Billie-Jo’s murder.

She had been battered to death with a metal tent peg on the patio of her foster family’s home. Six years after his conviction, he won an appeal against it and was released on bail pending a new trial. He was formally acquitted in February 2006 following two retrials when neither jury could reach a verdict.

Details of his compensation claim were revealed in 2008 after the publication of his book The Murder Of Billie-Jo. In it, for the first time, he mentioned his own prime suspect – a man he says he saw in the hall of his home in Hastings, East Sussex, on the day of the attack.

Around that time, Mr Jenkins said: ‘I believe the Government should compensate me for taking away my liberty for six years which also meant I lost the childhood of my daughters. ‘Family members have died while I was inside. I had a kicking while I was inside. I have raged inside because I have not been able to cope with what happened to me. ‘I believe the Government should pay for that. I have just filled in the forms. I am waiting for decision. I fulfil all the criteria. The amount is not the important thing.’

Billie-Jo was killed in February 1997. In the days after her death, Mr Jenkins was arrested for her murder. He has always maintained that he found her body when he returned from a trip to a DIY store.

After he was convicted, his wife Lois divorced him and moved with their four daughters to Tasmania, severing contact. Days after his acquittal she revealed how he had beaten her and their children. In her diary she alleged that her former husband had a history of domestic violence, violent mood swings and a fascination for corporal punishment. She had given similar evidence during his appeal hearing but the allegations were never heard by the jury. In a TV interview after his acquittal, Mr Jenkins denied the domestic violence.

During his first trial, it also emerged that he had faked his CV in order to get his deputy head post in Hastings, East Sussex. Mr Jenkins has since put this down to ‘stupidity’.

In February 2005, while awaiting the first of his two retrials, he secretly wed second wife Tina Ferneyhough, a 58-year-old millionaire art dealer.

Following Mr Jenkins’s acquittal, Sussex Police carried out a review of Billie-Jo’s murder but identified no new leads or suspects. A force spokesman said yesterday: ‘The murder of Billie-Jo Jenkins remains an unresolved case and is therefore subject to review in the event of any new and compelling evidence coming to light. ‘We will continue actively to pursue any viable lines of enquiry put to us, but none have emerged.’

Victims of miscarriages of justice are not automatically entitled to compensation after their original convictions are quashed. They must prove they are ‘clearly innocent’ to receive a payout. Claims for damages are considered under section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The amount paid for ‘suffering and harm to reputation’ is judged by factors including the seriousness of the offence and severity of punishment, the conduct of investigation and prosecution of the offence.

If ministers rule an applicant deserves a payout, an independent assessor, often a senior lawyer is appointed to decide how much. The Ministry of Justice said: ‘In order for it to be shown that it is beyond reasonable doubt there has been a miscarriage of justice for the purposes of paying compensation, the applicant must be shown to be “clearly innocent”.’

The department refused to discuss the outcome of Mr Jenkins’s damages claim. It is not known whether he is appealing the ruling.

Original report here



(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today. Now hosted on Wordpress. If you cannot access it, go to the MIRROR SITE, where posts appear as well as on the primary site. I have reposted the archives (past posts) for Wicked Thoughts HERE or HERE or here