@lhasa.one wrote:
Evans could take the view that his money paid for the best defense which as a result the jury came back with a not guilty verdict. Had he had a lesser defense maybe that would not have been the result... I know losing his savings must be hard but better that and be a free man than having to spend time in prison (possibly). At least he's cleared his name. He may have lost his job as deputy speaker but he's still an MP with an income. Many people lose the roof over their heads - and more - defending themselves.
I don't think he should be reimbursed his costs, that would open the flood gates for everyone else who had a "not guilty" verdict. It's our taxes that support the legal aid process and I don't want my money going back to people who can afford to pay for their own defense. Legal aid is there to represent people who can't pay and so it should be.
Like many people who have experienced difficulties in their lives he needs to take time to recover and put it behind him and think about his future. He could stop drinking for a start as that seems to be his achilles heel.
Good heavens, So guilt, or innocence depends on the cost, of one's defence.
Justice is therefore a lottery.
It seems that it matters not one iota, whether one is innocent, or guilty, but rather, how good your defence team is.
The man spent a fortune to prove his innocence.
He is innocent.... therefore he should not be out of pocket.
Indeed... he should be compensated adequately, and generously so.
Put yourself in his situation, you lose everything proving false allegations against yourself.
Now tell me that your view would be the same.
