Michael O'Brien and Andrew Malkinson were among the lucky ones. They are eligible for compensation for the years they spent in gaol having been wrongfully convicted (O'Brien for murder of a newsagent, Malkinson for rape). Malkinson will not even be charged for board and lodging under an infamous ruling by the House of Lords in 2007, O'Brien might even have his deduction returned to him.
However, as Private Eye points out, thanks to Chris Grayling's stint as Minister of Justice, compensation for wrongful imprisonment is not automatic.
In what lawyers, academics and MPs have condemned as an attack on the "innocent until proven guilty" principle that underpins the criminal justice system, it is no longer enough to have appeal court judges declare a conviction fundamentally flawed and unsafe. Only those who can show new evidence proving their innocence "beyond reasonable doubt" will get a penny for their wrecked lives. And who decides if a case meets that threshold? Not the courts, but the Ministry of Justice, which holds the purse strings.
Among those who were denied compensation under this ruling, in spite of the fact that any reasonable person would conclude from the belated disclosure of evidence which would have discredited each prosecution case, were Sam Hallam and Victor Nealon. They have now taken their claim for compensation to the European Court of Human Rights, but it should not require this lengthy and uncertain procedure for each victim of injustice to claim his or her due. The rules must be changed.
Nor does Labour have clean hands. There is a draconian cap on the amount of compensation, introduced by Charles Clarke in 2006. But at least he did not claim the right to second-guess the courts when it came to the right to compensation.
No comments:
Post a Comment