Miscarriage of justice victims Sam Hallam and Victor Nealon, who spent time in prison after being wrongly convicted, have lost their appeals at the Supreme Court.
Hallam spent seven years, and Nealon 17 years, in prison for crimes they did not commit. In both cases, their convictions were eventually quashed in light of new evidence.
Both men applied for compensation but were refused by the justice secretary on the grounds the new evidence did not show beyond reasonable doubt that they did not commit the crimes, as required by s 133, Criminal Justice Act 1988.
The men argued that the s 133 requirement is incompatible with the presumption of innocence in the European Convention on Human Rights.
However, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal by a 5-2 majority (Lords Reed and Kerr dissenting), in R (Hallam) & Anor v Secretary of State for Justice [2019] UKSC 2.
Emily Bolton, legal director at the Centre for Criminal Appeals, a charity that works on miscarriages of justice cases, said: ‘The Supreme Court was wrong not to declare this shameful law incompatible with the presumption of innocence.
‘Miscarriages of justice destroy lives. The government should act to ensure all miscarriage of justice victims get the apologies they deserve as well as the support they need to help rebuild their lives.’
Meanwhile, the Law Society has warned that criminal justice is in crisis after ‘years of neglect’. Vice president Simon Davis said people accused of crimes have a diminishing chance of a fair trial and victims have a reduced chance of seeing justice.
‘In our country, people are innocent until proven guilty after a fair trial—yet those accused are forced through a frequently unfair and nightmarish journey through the criminal justice system regardless of whether they are guilty or not.’
He highlighted a series of problems, including a shortage of criminal duty solicitors, ‘swathes of court closures’, repeatedly adjourned trials, barriers to legal aid access, failures to disclose crucial material from criminal investigations and ‘defendants on low incomes forced to pay fees they can’t afford’.
