Rapist wins damages from government

The government has been ordered to pay damages to a convicted rapist because of delays to a review about whether he should be released.

Samuel Betteridge, from Mablethorpe in Lincs, should be compensated for a 13-month wait for a parole hearing, the European Court of Human Rights ruled.

Betteridge, 58, was jailed in 2005 for raping a 14-year-old girl.

He was awarded 750 euros plus 2,000 euros in costs, after the court decided his rights had been breached.

This is another perverse decision by the ECHR. This betteridge animal lost his rights the moment he raped a 14 year girl

I will read the whole case notes but it is cases like this that show how crass the echr rulings can be.

So who decides when somebody loses their Human Rights ? Is it on conviction ? Is it only if the sentence involves custodial time ? Is it for certain offences - such as rape ? But then is it ALL rapes, or only those involving victims under 16 ? Do you believe that a UK Bill of Rights would work any differently ?

Once you start being selective, the system is open to manipulation and abuse.

This is simply another case where the question should be 'How did officials who know full well what the regulations are allow this to be overlooked for so long' ? If the rules had been applied correctly, his appeal would have happened, been refused, and there would not have been a case to answer in the HR Court.

As I said Badger, I want to read the ECHR decison on this to understand the ruling but to me it seems perverse that this animal raped a 14 year old.

he had no respect for the girls human rights when he raped her, In the eyes of the law she is a child.

Its not about being selective its about looking at what happened to the visctim , in my humble opinion

As I said Badger, I want to read the ECHR decison on this to understand the ruling but to me it seems perverse that this animal raped a 14 year old.

he had no respect for the girls human rights when he raped her, In the eyes of the law she is a child.

 

Its not about being selective its about looking at what happened to the visctim , in my humble opinion

His tariff had expired but due to the type of sentence he was on, instead of having a parole hearing when it expired it was delayed by 18+ months.

The judgement refers everyone's right to fair detention, set by a court, and because of the workload of the parole boards, due to these intermediate sentences, they decided that had been breeched.

HMG have shelled out £300k+ so far so it's very unusual for ECHR to get involved.

So who decides when somebody loses their Human Rights ?

Old men who rape children is bout where i draw the line tbh

Old men cant catch children can they

that's why god invented roofies

Old men who rape children is bout where i draw the line tbh

This.

View from the top I accept the reasoning re parole . But this guy raped a 14 year old . I wonder what other sexual crimes he committed, I find it hard to fathom that he gets compensation while a 14 year old has had her life destroyed by this evil uncaring arseole . Surely if you want human rights to apply to you then respect the rights of others . He didn't when he raped the lass. Beside why should my taxes go to rewarding a rapist whose parole request took 13 months to be heard . The guy should be castrated

View from the top I accept the reasoning re parole . But this guy raped a 14 year old . I wonder what other sexual crimes he committed, I find it hard to fathom that he gets compensation while a 14 year old has had her life destroyed by this evil uncaring arseole . Surely if you want human rights to apply to you then respect the rights of others . He didn't when he raped the lass. Beside why should my taxes go to rewarding a rapist whose parole request took 13 months to be heard . The guy should be castrated

It has nothing to do with his crime, which he should have been hung for, but the failure of the State to follow the legislation that they drafted at the end of the tariff.

The ECHR ruling has nothing to do at all with what he was convicted for but simply for what the State didn't do.

I'm no legal expert, but this convicted paedo gets more money than an innocent man who was incarcerated 8 years for not murdering Jill Dando.

A mature man who raped a 14 year old should never be released back into society. The ECHR should have told him to f*ck off.

I'm no legal expert, but this convicted paedo gets more money than an innocent man who was incarcerated 8 years for not murdering Jill Dando.

 

A mature man who raped a 14 year old should never be released back into society. The ECHR should have told him to f*ck off.

The ECHR simply ruled on current legislation.

If we hung child rapists then they'd be no need for a parole hearing.

View I am aware the ECHR ruling was nothing to do with his crime . But they still found in his favour because the labour govt didn't do their job right . It still doesn't make it right . He had no respect for the girl . So why should he get any respect

View I am aware the ECHR ruling was nothing to do with his crime . But they still found in his favour because the labour govt didn't do their job right . It still doesn't make it right . He had no respect for the girl . So why should he get any respect

Doesn't matter if we think it's right or not, it's how the law is framed.

These case are ALWAYs so fricken frustrating because to normal people its impossible to separate his crime from thsi type of decision - these cases are so emotive given the hiddeousness of his actions.. but a VFTT says, from a legal perspective there has to be a separation. His punishment for his crime was his sentance - irrespective of whether we agree with the length of it. The system failed in respect to the legal requirement for his parole hearing and that is all the ECHR could adjudicate on... Viking, not sure why you are trying make political mileage out of this... the CIVIL SERVICE failed in its job.. I doubt it would have been any different under any Government.

Its unpaletable and in our eyes indefensible, but legal decisions can not be made emotionally.

What about the rights of the 14 year old? Did anyone ask her if he should have got damages?

What about the rights of the 14 year old? Did anyone ask her if he should have got damages?

It's not about the crime, which he should have been hung for, but the failure of the State to manage his imprisonment & legal recourse to a parole hearing.

Rapists have no rights, they give those up when they abuse women like this. Kid rapists and gay rapists are even worse. Although, I guess in a way gay rapists are the absolute worst. Why would a man force another's n to take his penis in his anus? I find that pretty disrespectful tbh.

I agree with Soton Joe it s not a palatable decision especially as it is tax payers money.

"This is yet another example of a decision that I think should be taken by the British courts not ECHR.

Yes There are was A 13-month delay between the end of Betteridge's minimum term and his first parole hearing was a breach of his right to a speedy hearing, the European Court of Human Rights found on Tuesday.

bu this was caused by a change in legislation which meant there was a massive deluge of applications following the IPP introduction at the time . Ambulance chasing do gooder lawyers jumped on the band wagon re taking up human rights cases for this group of criminals.

Betteridge's minimum term expired in December 2008 and no Parole Board review had taken place by the time the tariff expired. A hearing was initially planned for May 2009, then rescheduled for September that year.

However, a pre-tariff advisory meeting recommended that his security category was not downgraded as he remained at risk of re-offending.

In the meantime, Betteridge brought judicial review proceedings challenging the delays in fixing a Parole Board hearing in his case.

A High court judge found in 2009 that that there had been a violation of Article 5(4) of the European Convention on Human Rights - the right to a speedy hearing.

The ruling came amid a crisis at the Parole Board following the introduction of IPP (Indeterminate Sentence for Public Protection) sentences, as it was swamped with hundreds of applications for release, leading to a backlog and scores of human rights challenges.

The High Court ruled that there was no conceivable claim for damages as the pre-tariff hearing had made it clear that there was no chance of Betteridge being released.

The Parole Board hearing fixed for September 2009 was postponed to January 13 2010, at which it was recommended that Betteridge should be moved to open prison conditions.

In ruling that Betteridge's human rights had been breached, the European court attacked the way in which the government handled the introduction of IPP sentences.

It said: "Furthermore, the fact remained that the delay in reviewing Mr Betteridge's case was the direct result of the failure of the authorities to anticipate the demand which would be placed on the prison system following the introduction of IPP sentencing and that it was for the state to organise its judicial system in such a way as to enable its courts to comply with the requirement under the convention of a speedy hearing to review the lawfulness of detention."

IPPs, introduced under the 2003 Criminal Justice Act, are aimed at persons who commit offences of a violent or sexual nature and are deemed to be dangerous to the public. Convicted offenders remain in custody until considered safe to be released

Something needs to change. In this case 'human rights' should not apply.

The fact that he took such a complaint to Srasbourg in the first place shows that he has no remorse for what he did. He thought then of nothing but his own gratification, at whatever cost to the girl, and his attitude has not changed, or he would have accepted his punishment.

It was also pre meditated, and not therefore a "crime passionelle" the fact that he gave her alcohol before he did it shows that.

And Franks Cousin. Sorry frank was not trying to gain political mileage but restoring the balance, There were those not on here but in the media who were openly blaming the coalition government for this cock up , when it was infact the last admininstration. the BBC / sky etc and others should have made that clear in respect of the reason for this judgement but were basically infereing that it was the current administartions fault

The fact that he took such a complaint to Srasbourg i...

Do you think he took it to Strasbourg, or his self-interested lawyers ?

Perhaps they could let him make a choice... He can have his cock or his money. One or the other.

You lot should write to your MP and appeal for tougher sentences, or a change in the law which removes parole for certain offences. It sounds like that's what you want, and fair enough. But all this 'he gave up his right the moment he committed the crime', and 'his human rights should not apply' is just daft.

The judge/legal system decide the sentence. If they have screwed up sorting out the parole hearing that he's entitled to, then quite right he should kick up a fuss. If it was me in jail for something and they waited over a year to sort out my parole hearing, I would be shouting from the rooftops too. Don't blame the crim because the administration (or whoever it is) can't sort themselves out in time. I'm just ****ed off that my taxes are going to this rapist because people aren't doing their jobs properly.

This whole debacle has cost us tax payers milions . Those responsible you be made to forgo their bonus's to pay towards the compnesation

This is from the independant on sunday, Murderers, rapists and kidnappers have received compensation totalling hundreds of thousands of pounds from the Government after complaining that delays in their parole hearings breached their human rights.

The Parole Board has admitted that a backlog of cases has forced it to pay out more than £300,000 in the past three years to compensate scores of prisoners for "distress" caused by the delays.

The total bill for compensation in 2012 was more than £100,000 and includes a £9,000 payout to a murderer who sued the authorities when they missed the deadline for deciding whether he should be freed on parole.

The Parole Board yesterday blamed the soaring costs on the increased workload caused by Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) sentences introduced in 2003

Samuel Sturnham, who was jailed for manslaughter in 2007 after killing a man in a pub brawl, won £300 at the High Court after he claimed waiting for his parole review had caused him "anxiety and distress". The parole hearing, when it was eventually held, refused to let him out of prison.

Almost 80 criminals, half of them convicted killers, have received sums ranging from £300 to £9,000 in the past three years, according to figures obtained under freedom of information legislation. In 2010, there were 23 successful claims, amounting to £54,100; in 2011, the totals rose to £156,500, shared between 26 claimants; and last year a record 30 prisoners received £102,550. The successful claimants included 38 murderers, seven rapists and five people serving time for manslaughter.

AS for Mr sturnham waiting for his parole review caused him stress and anxiety. He killed a man, I would have ben more worried to what would happen to him after he was released. May the dead mans mates did go round and say hello to him ?

You would have thought that after the first successful appeal, they would have got the parole hearing problem fixed.