Current regime provides little redress for victims of miscarriages of justice
The Supreme Court has heard arguments on the threshold for compensation in a high-profile case that could change the way victims of wrongful conviction are treated.
Both Sam Hallam, who served seven years for murder, and Victor Nealon, who served 17 years for attempted rape, were convicted of crimes they did not commit. Neither of them received compensation.
Their appeal, in R (on the applications of Nealon & Hallam) v Secretary of State for Justice, centres on the s 133, Criminal Justice Act 1998 test that an applicant for compensation has had their conviction quashed because ‘a new or newly discovered fact shows beyond reasonable doubt that there has been a miscarriage of justice’. Their lawyers argue that the test is incompatible with the presumption of innocence in Art 6(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Both men’s claims for compensation were rejected by the Secretary of State because they failed to meet the test.
Civil rights group Justice, which is intervening in the case, says the test is so high that only six applications have been successful in the past six years. It has provided evidence that the current statutory compensation regime is inadequate, arguing that the current regime has reduced the redress for wrongful conviction to virtually nothing.
Last month, Justice exposed the lack of support available once exonerees are freed, in its report, Supporting exonerees: Ensuring accessible, consistent and continuing support. It makes the point that, while much of the focus is on securing freedom, the aftermath of a miscarriage of justice can be mentally and financially gruelling for the individual involved.
Mobile phone evidence showed Hallam had not been at the scene of a gang fight while, in Nealon’s case, fresh DNA evidence revealed someone else had been the attacker. Nealon could have been freed ten years earlier but was refused parole because he refused to say he was guilty.
Writing in NLJ this week, Jon Robins, NLJ columnist and author of Guilty Until Proven Innocent, says: ‘When a miscarriage of justice case hits the headlines, it is easy to dismiss it as a shocking one-off aberration—a minor hiccup in a system that otherwise functions in a satisfactory fashion’.
