Justice?

Are you really innocent until proved guilty? That's the basis on which our criminal justice system is supposedly grounded. Unlike Scotland, we don't have a "not proven" verdict, which essentially means "the evidence isn't strong enough to convict you, but we're pretty sure you did it". So what do we make of the refusal to grant any compensation to Sion Jenkins for the six years he spent in gaol? The facts are that he was tried and convicted of the murder of his foster-daughter, but that conviction was later quashed on appeal and a new trial ordered. At that new trial, and again at a second new trial, the jury failed to reach a verdict, and so, as is normal in such circumstances, the prosecution dropped the case, and Mr Jenkins walked free. The guidelines for granting compensation state that it should only be paid where someone has been shown to be "clearly innocent". Where does that leave Mr Jenkins? His original conviction was quashed, so we can forget that one, and at both new trials he was not proved to be guilty - so according to the rules, he's innocent. I'm not quite sure what adding the word "clearly" is supposed to achieve - you're either innocent or you're not. It rather smacks of "not proven" doesn't it?