[Closed] Harvey Proctor Payout

I find it hard to applaud his pursuit of a large payout, unless he's on his uppers - surely that comes indirectly out of our pockets. Felt the same about the Beeb and police paying punitive compo to Cliff Richard.

He’s hardly “David” even if the MET are Goliath. How many “ordinary” men off the street could afford to rack up a 500k legal bill to assert their innocence? And even if you could - how many would manage to have the PR interest which would encourage the MET to settle?

How many “ordinary” men off the street could afford to rack up a 500k legal bill to assert their innocence? And even if you could – how many would manage to have the PR interest which would encourage the MET to settle?

The fact that relatively few people can use the legal system to get redress for this kind of injustice is the problem.

Why should he not pursue a 'large' payout - if that is what he did.
He rejected an initial offer; the Met dragged out the process until they were on the steps of the court house.
Likely that the Met carry insurance against these sorts of matters.
Reputation trashed through vile allegations - we're not talking about fiddling expenses; lost job and grace'n'favour accommodation.
His personal finances are a complete irrelevance.
I don't know the basis on which his legal fees were funded or PR was managed - do you?
I'm sure he would have made useful contacts as an MP and working for Duke of Rutland.
It's definitely david & goliath; david - an individual at risk of being steam-rollered, limited resources to take on the fight; goliath - money no object, unlimited legal support, no scrutiny until after the event, attritional attitude.
Yep, good on Proctor.

unless he’s on his uppers

Not really relevent but as it happens he is. He was ruined in every since of the word. His friends set up some kind of gofund me page for him at one point. This payout is necassary and very well deserved IMHO.

Hear it in his own words here:

https://podtail.com/podcast/all-talk-with-iain-dale/bonus-harvey-proctor/

How many “ordinary” men off the street could afford to rack up a 500k legal bill to assert their innocence?

I reckon if any of us were falsely and publically accused of committing sexual offences against children we'd sell our house to defend ourselves, just like Proctor had to. Wouldn't you?

The tragedy of this is that it has brought journalism into disrepute and has ended the political career of a very promising deputy party leader.

I remember when the stories broke via Exaro - a news platform I'd never heard of before. The fact that a couple of people named had a "reputation" so to speak does not immediately make them guilty of systematic abuse and allegations of murder. Remember that this was happening at the same time that Greville Janner was supposed to be a witness for a "Trial of Facts" and subsequently died just before this was due to take place.

Having one's professional reputation destroyed as had happened to Harvey Proctor is awful, regardless of how one feels about the man's political career. One does sympathise with people not able to spend so much on their legal defence, but ultimately Harvey Proctor was wrongly accused and has been vindicated in court.

the basis on which his legal fees were funded

I'm sure he will have a better line of credit with any top class legal outfit than would be possible to any other random geezer

At the end of the day he was wronged by the plod; the claims were so weak as to be laughable to sensible people.

BTW where is JHJ?

I find it hard to applaud his pursuit of a large payout,

If the Police / CPS don't have to pay for their mistakes, there is no effective feedback process for them to improve their processes.

The man has suffered a terrible injustice, huge financial loss on a case that never should got anywhere. The least they can do is compensate him.

He lost his job and the house that went with it iirc, so possibly, maybe, justifies a higher settlement

unless he’s on his uppers

He lost his job and the home that went with it as a result - how much worse would you need it to be to recognise that he has a damn good case for substantial compensation?

I have less of an issue with this than spending the reported £65m on prosecuting David Duckenfield for what went on at Hilsborough 30 years ago..

With this statement released about the evidence, "Detective Superintendent Kenny McDonald for announcing publicly that Beech's claims were "credible and true"" - that shows a complete disregard of the law process for me. That was stated early into the investigation. It then took the Met months to withdraw the "true" comment, by that time its too late.

Mr Proctor heavily criticised the police for saying they believed Beech's accusations to be "true".
He said: "The effect of that was that for nine months before they withdrew the word 'true', the Met Police were putting on the record that I was a serial murderer of children.
"That is outrageous and has been very difficult to live with. I'm not the same person I used to be, I don't think I will ever be that person again."
He said he had received death threats and lost his job, his home and his reputation.

He was always my favourite in suits...

BTW where is JHJ?

On a Bigmountain(in)Scotland, I believe.

outofbreath
- Not really relevent but as it happens he is. 

Fair play, cheers - my own prejudice at work, then, thinking an ex-Conservative MP would be sitting on a pile of money and wouldn't need the cash.

On a Bigmountain(in)Scotland, I believe.

With Prince Philip in lizard form.

Read up on Janner and what is known about him. allegations about him predate this mess by a lot.

I hope he gets his comeuppance one day

The payout doesn’t seem enough to me.

On the legal fees point there was a teacher in the news a year or two ago - he had been forced into bankruptcy under the weight of £400k of legal fees defending himself against what were proven to be completely false and malicious claims of sexual assault. I think he also lost his marriage, home and access to his own children along the way - and even when he was proven innocent the coverage of the case meant he would never be able to work as a teacher again.

The consequences for false allegations need to be much bigger and it’s wrong that public servants like the leaders of the Met are allowed to remain in their jobs when they have failed so comprehensively.

Don’t forget the charming Harvey has 4 (yes 4) convictions for unlawful sexual activity on record.

Or to put it another way in addition to having face this horrific spurious accusation he was also a victim of state sanctioned homophobia.

(I'm assuming you're referring to convictions that only exist because back in the day the age of consent for homosexual prostitutes was higher than the age of consent for heterosexuals.)

Again - read up on him.

Don’t forget the charming Harvey has 4 (yes 4) convictions for unlawful sexual activity on record. I’m struggling to feel any empathy for him as he is a recidivist.

It's just an earlier example of a serious injustice against Proctor, one that has been acknowledged by the government, given that he could now get those convictions removed from the public record if he wanted.

But you didn't even need to resort to such a smear. There's plenty in Proctor's actual political career which is highly unpleasant.

I reckon if any of us were falsely and publically accused of committing sexual offences against children we’d sell our house to defend ourselves, just like Proctor had to. Wouldn’t you?

That was kind of my point - ordinary people don’t have half a million in property equity to release to fund a legal defence (or the subsequent civil case). Ordinary people might well have found themselves in a situation where they had to take the first offer of settlement because their prospect of using media attention to make the case more painful for the Met (or if they were fortunate enough to have insurance, their insurer said accept). he is definitely a victim of what the Secret Barrister calls the Innocence Tax, but he’s definitely not, what my Old Testament learnings 30+ years ago told me David represented - one seemingly powerless, and poorly armed young boy standing up against a giant against all the odds, to protect all his people not just himself... I’m not saying he shouldn’t have been compensated just that labeling him as some sort of hero against the machinery of state is somewhat exaggerated.

But you didn’t even need to resort to such a smear.

The comment came from one of the queer chaps on my Twitter feed who regards the man as irredeemably recidivist. I did some reading and concurred. A deeply unpleasant man who by virtue of his position has managed to get a huge payout from us all.

I did some reading and concurred

Fine - those examples would be better, not ones where a man has been criminalised for something that is no longer a criminal activity.

Although unless they are cast iron examples of the criminality that you suggest, he does seem quite a litigious fellow.

I have no liking for him (understatement), but that is because of his campaigning on immigration in my area in the late 1970s.

Pondo - I didn't use David & Goliath in the true biblical sense; I was referring to a large and very well resourced organisation lost to an individual who fought for what he believed was right. So, in that sense, I could have chosen a better analogy.
He was not prepared to bend in the face of significant pressure when he knew he was in the right.

TJ - you're deliberately introducing irrelevant statements about Proctor's past; as you know, my post was completely focussed on the Met's settlement of the 'Nick' case.
Anything Proctor may have done previously - whether personal, political, criminal or just unacceptable to you - is irrelevant.

I am no apologist for Proctor - see earlier posts - but it's important we stick to the facts of this case.
No doubt, he is litigious but that is also irrelevant; the Met should, possibly, have considered that in how they chose manage the enquiry and deal with him.

£500k compensation and £400k legal fees though he was never even charged?
I'm sure those who have served lengthy prison sentences but were then released on appeal and were then refused compensation may think we have a legal system that favours those with assets and connections.