Restitution
front page

What's new?

Archive front page

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2007

2006

2008

2009

I happen to think that the whole argument is spurious and takes our own version of the compensation culture to a new level, that is the idea that one should only be compensated for one’s loss.

How much someone would have earned if they had not been incarcerated is highly speculative. They could for example have decided to found their own business, gone bankrupt, been run over by a car. However the court does have to speculate here.

How much a person would have spent on living expenses is highly speculative also. They may have moved back with parents, won the lottery and bought a house, got a job which was live in. The possibilities are endless, so any figure would have to be speculative, and it is not a speculation the courts should have entertained.

It is also an affront to my own personal sense of justice, akin to sating to an RTA victim that their compensation could be cut by £100 per year as they no longer needed shoes as their legs had been cut off in the accident.

Just my 2p worth.

Kind regards
Benedict White